President Barack Obama and Housing Secretary Julian CastroPhoto: AP; Gregory P. Mango
Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.
The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County, while assigning them government real estate agents called “mobility counselors” to secure housing in the exurbs.
Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.
It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records. And last year, he implemented a powerful new regulation — “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” — that pressures all suburban counties taking federal grant money to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing (landlords of such properties are required to accept Section 8 vouchers).
Castro is expected to finalize the new regulation, known as “Small-Area Fair Market Rents” (SAFMR), this October, in the last days of the Obama presidency.
It will set voucher rent limits by ZIP code rather than metro area, the current formula, which makes payments relatively small. For example, the fair market rent for a one-bedroom in New York City is about $1,250, which wouldn’t cover rentals in leafy areas of Westchester County, such as Mamaroneck, where Castro and his social engineers seek to aggressively resettle Section 8 tenants.
[The Section 8 reboot] is all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
In expensive ZIP codes, Castro’s plan — which requires no congressional approval — would more than double the standard subsidy, while also covering utilities. At the same time, he intends to reduce subsidies for those who choose to stay in housing in poor urban areas, such as Brooklyn. So Section 8 tenants won’t just be pulled to the suburbs, they’ll be pushed there.
“We want to use our housing-choice vouchers to ensure that we don’t have a concentration of poverty and the aggregation of racial minorities in one part of town, the poor part of town,” the HUD chief said recently, adding that he’s trying to undo the “result of discriminatory policies and practices in the past, and sometimes even now.”
A draft of the new HUD rule anticipates more than 350,000 Section 8 voucher holders will initially be resettled under the SAFMR program. Under Obama, the total number of voucher households has grown to more than 2.2 million.
The document argues that larger vouchers will allow poor urban families to “move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services and educational opportunities.” In other words, offering them more money to move to more expensive neighborhoods will improve their situation.
But HUD’s own studies show the theory doesn’t match reality.
President Bill Clinton started a similar program in 1994 called “Moving to Opportunity Initiative,” which moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods in several counties across the country.
The 15-year experiment bombed.
A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.
Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.
“Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.
Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.
Of course, even when reality mugs leftists, they never scrap their social theories. They just double down.
The problem, they rationalized, was that the relocation wasn’t aggressive enough. They concluded they could get the desired results if they placed urban poor in even more affluent areas.
HUD recently tested this new theory in Dallas with disastrous results.
Starting in 2012, the agency sweetened Section 8 voucher payments, and pointed inner-city recipients to the far-flung counties surrounding Dallas. As government-subsidized rentals spread in all areas of the Metroplex (163 ZIP codes vs. 129 ZIP codes), so did crime.
Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help police control it. For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the tony bedroom communities north of the city. Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.
Although HUD’s “demonstration project” may have improved the lives of some who moved, it’s ended up harming the lives of many of their new neighbors. And now Castro wants to roll it out nationwide. Soon he will give Section 8 recipients money to afford rent wherever they choose — and if they don’t want to move, he’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse.
Ironically, Hillary’s own hometown of Chappaqua is fighting Section 8 housing because of links to drugs and crime and other problems.
This is a big policy shift that will have broad implications, affecting everything from crime to property values. And it could even impact the presidential election, especially if Castro joins Hillary on the Democratic ticket.
The central banks are now ready to launch their ‘brave new world’
The latest Federal Reserve meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is over and so far it would seem that the general investment world is not too happy about Janet Yellen’s statements as well as those of other Fed officials. In fact, many people are looking for some simple clarity as to what the central bank is actually planning.
Most importantly, investors want to know why the Fed is suddenly so adamant about continued interest rate hikes in 2016. Only a couple months ago, almost everyone, including alternative economic analysts, was arguing that the Fed will “never dare” to raise rates again so soon, and that there was no chance of a rate hike so close to the presidential elections.
Instead, investors have been greeted with surging rate-hike odds as Fed officials openly hint of another boost, probably in September.
As I have been saying for years, if you think the Fed’s motivation is to protect or prolong the U.S. economy, then you will never understand why they do the things that they do. Only when people are willing to accept the reality that the Fed’s job is to undermine the U.S. economy, only then can they grasp central bank behavior.
Here is the issue that scares mainstream markets — many day traders are greedy, but not necessarily dumb. They know full well that the only pillar holding up stocks at record highs has been central bank intervention. A vital part of this intervention has been the use of near-zero interest rates. That is to say, cheap and free overnight loans through the Fed have allowed banks and other corporations to remain “solvent,” and these loans have been the fuel companies have used for corporate buybacks of stocks.
Corporate buybacks have been a primary driver in the bull market rally that supposedly saved the world from the ongoing deflationary destruction of capital. In 2015, buybacks reached historic levels and garnered one of the largest equities reversals in history. While these buybacks do little or nothing to heal the economy on Main Street, they certainly do wonders for equities portfolios. By buying up their own shares, corporations boost the value of remaining shares through a brand of legal trickery. And, in the process, these corporations also boost the overall perceived value of global stock markets.
“We can’t say for sure what would have happened without the repurchase, but it really looks like the stock would have kept going down because of the decline in fundamentals… these repurchases seem to hold up the stock price.”
Yes, to us he seems to be stating the obvious, but for the average American, a green stock market means a recovering economy. There is no deeper question of why the markets are rallying, and this lack of understanding is dangerous for our country.
Even marginal hikes in borrowing costs will kill the party and, while people not involved in finance and stocks are oblivious, day traders know exactly what is going on. This is the reason for the underlying panic felt by the investment world at any hint of a rate hike by the Fed.
As we saw with the limited audit of TARP, the Fed was pumping tens of trillions in overnight loans into distressed banks and companies, even foreign companies overseas. I suggest that if a full audit of the Fed were ever conducted, we would find tens of trillions more in overnight loans since 2008.
Imagine for a moment if those loans never stopped. Imagine that such loans have been an ongoing mainstay of our financial system and stock markets in general. Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the companies reliant on these free loans suddenly had to pay interest on them?
Think about it; what would the interest cost be on a mere .5 percent to 1 percent of $16 trillion in overnight loans through TARP? What would the cumulative cost be on all the loans banks and companies need to survive every quarter? In the end, corporations would either drown in billions of dollars exponential debt or they would have to stop accessing loans from the Fed. Once the loans stop, the stock buybacks stop. Once the buybacks stop, stock markets crumble.
Without free cash from the Fed, the bubble in stock markets will finally and thoroughly implode, crashing down to meet all other fundamentals.
Why would the central bank pull the plug on life support to stock markets? There are multiple reasons, but the top reason is that this is the Federal Reserve’s modus operandi. They consistently seem to raise rates into recessionary conditions that they also tend to create. In essence, the Fed likes to acclimate and addict markets to low interest percentages, and then increase those percentages to agitate and elicit a chaotic reaction.
“Really, the only safe measure the Fed can take from now on is to do nothing. I highly doubt that they will do nothing. In fact, even in the face of the Brexit I still believe the Fed will raise rates a second time before the end of the year. Why? This is what the Fed has always done as recession takes hold. Historically, the Fed raises rates at the worst possible times. As with the Brexit, I am going to have to take the contrary position to most analysts on this.”
What analysts out there need to understand, whether they are independent or mainstream, is that a great shift in central bank policy and attitude is coming. Christine Lagarde at the IMF calls it the “economic reset,” some Fed officials, like Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart, state that central banks are entering a “brave new world.” These are highly loaded phrases that represent a drastic overhaul of the global financial system; an overhaul that is quite deliberate and inevitably destructive for certain nations and economies, including the U.S.
If we examine the policy pursuits and recently stated goals of central banks around the world, most of all those statements made after the Brexit referendum, we find that a process of complete global centralization is underway. This includes a push for all central banks to “coordinate policy” under a single directive.
Alternative analysts already know the all central banks are alreadycovertly coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements. So, when central bankers call for policy coordination in the mainstream press, what they really mean is, they want the coordination that is covert to become publicly accepted and celebrated. They want that which is illegal to become legal. That which is morally reprehensible to become morally relative.
Central bankers also want their position of authority over the global economy to become a public priority. Ten years ago, when I asked average people what they knew about the Federal Reserve, most of them responded with confusion. They had never heard of the institution, let alone what its function was. Today, almost everyone knows about the Fed, but the there is also an assumption attached that central banks, whether they are successful or not, are supposed to maintain economic stability. Keep in mind that global stocks barely vibrate today until a central bank somewhere publishes a policy statement. This is not how investment is supposed to function. The jawboning of central banks should be mostly meaningless.
The brave new world of central banking is a plan to expand on this corrupt correlation. That is to say, the general public and the mainstream should be questioning whether central banks should exist at all. Instead, people are arguing over what policies are better for central banks to adapt. The existence of central banks is considered an absolute. The masses are only given the option to debate what faces and what hats central banks should wear. If we get anything out of this deal, we only get to choose the form of our destructor.
I believe that with the advent of a second rate hike in 2016, many conditions will change. Stock markets will no longer enjoy unmitigated support, and they will begin to fall going into the elections. As I have mentioned many times in past articles, Donald Trump is the most likely candidate to take up residence in the White House. Conservatives will be lulled into a temporary euphoria, happy just to have defeated she-demon Hillary Clinton, only to discover that an overall global implosion has entered a new stage. This implosion will of course be blamed on those same conservative movements.
In the meantime, central banks around the world are going to start openly coordinating while the IMF will take up a “leadership role” in managing international policy. Central banks will also be branching out and taking on new powers. As suggested at Jackson Hole, many central bankers are arguing for “new tools” to fight future fiscal downturns, and no, this does not mean negative interest rates. Instead, watch for central banks that change the definition of inflation on a whim, or adjust the relative value of currencies through agreements with other countries instead of allowing free markets to determine values, and watch for complete overhauls in how economic instability is calculated.
What we are heading for is a world in which many nations will suffer from reductions in living standards and where some first world nations will be reduced to third world conditions. In order to normalize increased global poverty, you have to stop calling it poverty and start calling it a “brave new world.” You have to convince the populace that the economic degradation is not a problem that can be solved — rather, it is a problem we must all adapt to and accept.
Be very wary when elites and international financiers mention “global reset,” or a “brave new world,” or a “new world order.” What they are talking about is not a program that is in your best interest. What they are talking about is the deliberate creation of chaos; a slow burning calamity that can be exploited to derive the benefits of even more centralization and even more power.
They will call it random. They will call it coincidence or fate or even blame it all on their ideological opponents. In the end, they will eventually call it a natural progression of events; a social and financial evolution. They will call it inevitable. None of this will be true. There is nothing natural about a totalitarian framework — it is a machine that is carefully crafted piece by piece, maintained by the hands of a select few tyrants and fed with the labor, sacrifice and fear of the innocent.
The only solution is to expunge the parasites from our fiscal body. These institutions and the people behind them should not exist. Most if not all of our sociopolitical distress today could be cured if a “brave new world” meant wiping the slate clean and dispelling financial elites and central bankers into a bottomless pit.
Aug. 29, 2016 The authoritarian Uzbek leader’s hospitalization could mean chaos in the region.
By Kamran Bokhari GPF Geopolitical Futures
While the world continues to be captivated by ever-growing crises in the Middle East, the nearby region of Central Asia is headed toward destabilization, as our 2016 forecast suggests. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have been ruled by geriatric strongmen for over a quarter of a century, going back to the days of the Soviet Union. Uzbekistan is at great risk for instability, given that its president has been hospitalized after a reported stroke with no clear succession plan among regional clan rivalries. Since Uzbekistan borders each of the countries in the region, instability there could destabilize in the rest of Central Asia as well.
Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan’s 78-year-old ruler and the only president the country has had since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been hospitalized, according to reports on Aug. 28. According to official state media outlet UzA, Karimov is receiving in-patient treatment and unnamed medical specialists said that “a full medical examination and subsequent treatment will require a certain period of time.” Uzbekistan is an extremely opaque nation, and thus it is difficult to ascertain the precise status of Karimov’s health. That said, Tashkent has never before released information on the health of the ailing president, which is why it is reasonable to assume that a leadership transition is finally at hand.
Uzbekistan is not your average authoritarian state. Many autocratic regimes, despite the overwhelming influence of the ruling family and friends, develop institutions. In sharp contrast, multiple clans from Uzbekistan’s various regions have long been struggling for power. Karimov was able to rule because he could balance the clans from the country’s three principal regions (Samarkand, Tashkent and Fergana) and four lesser ones (Jizzakh, Kashkadarya, Khorezm and Karakalpak). In addition, Karimov’s family has been at war with itself – as is evident from the publicly acrimonious relationship between his daughters, Gulnara Karimova and Lola Karimova-Tillyaeva.
This means there is no clear line of succession and great risk of a power struggle. The regional bases of the various top clans in the country increases the risk of civil war, though it is possible that the massive costs of infighting could push the elites to negotiate a power-sharing settlement.
However, a negotiated settlement is unlikely because Uzbeks have been ruled with an iron fist for some 140 years, during which there has been zero tolerance for dissent. From 1876 to 1917, Uzbekistan was under the control of czarist Russia. Then the country disappeared behind the iron curtain of the Soviet Union for nearly 75 years. On Sept. 1, Uzbekistan will celebrate the 25th anniversary of its independence.
Many within the fractious ruling elite see Karimov’s death or incapacitation as an opportunity to enhance their power. Such openings are rare, and there are many who do not want to pass up such a historic opportunity. Of course, some have long wanted to maximize their power, but feared the potential anarchy from making a move against Karimov and thus remained aligned with him. Those calculations no longer hold when the incumbent leader is approaching the end of his rule.
All the factions have been preparing for this day and some may have already been engaged in negotiating the new balance of power for this day. No side can truly trust the other and thus suspicions abound about true intentions. In such a situation, the impending transition is not just a historic opportunity, but also a major threat. Thus, each clan has an imperative to make sure that its interests are safeguarded after all is said and done.
Authoritarian regimes do not have established processes to manage power transitions. In Uzbekistan’s case, the situation is even more dire, as it has never experienced a transfer of power. Aggravating this situation is that the usual suspects, i.e., the various factions that form the country’s mainstream, aren’t the only ones eyeing the transition. Since the 1990s, the country has produced the largest jihadist movement in all of Central Asia. It is unclear to what extent insurrectionist Islamists are present in the country to take advantage of the emerging power vacuum. However, Uzbek nationals have been engaged in various jihadist theaters such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and more recently Syria, in the wake of the Islamic State’s rise.
These factions are also hoping to exploit the situation. Their agenda is not confined to the national boundaries. They would love to use Uzbekistan as a springboard to expand into the wider Central Asian region. Uzbeks comprise the largest ethnic community in the Fergana Valley, which is a hotbed of Islamist activity. The region extends into neighboring Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, making it a channel to spread instability beyond the country’s borders.
In our 2016 forecast, we predicted that there is no way Central Asian can remain immune from the crises that surround it. Russia is facing a massive financial crunch due to the decline of energy prices. The region’s other major stakeholder, China, is also in crisis because of the global economic downturn. The Middle East is in a state of growing anarchy, which has a natural spillover effect into South Asia.
Indeed, we have seen both civil agitation and armed attacks in the Central Asia’s largest country, Kazakhstan. Not a week goes by without a report about authorities in a Central Asian country either cracking down on radical Islamists or engaging in enhanced security measures. Meanwhile, their economies are not doing well, given the decline of energy prices, which has directly affected Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Kyrgyzstan is more stable than the other three countries, but are chronically poor.
Uzbekistan, however, holds the key to the future of the region. The country is located at the heart of Central Asia. What happens there will affect the entire region. Therefore, the quickly approaching post-Karimov era is not solely a domestic political problem, but rather one that has potentially massive geopolitical ramifications.
European security Europol deploys 200 counterterrorism officers to Greece to thwart ISIS infiltration
Published 29 August 2016 Homeland Security News Wire
Rob Wainwright, the chief of Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, said that 200 counter terrorism officers will be deployed to the Greek islands within weeks in an effort to thwart a “strategic”-level campaign by ISIS to infiltrate terrorists into Europe. The new task force will be deployed alongside Greek border guards and use technologies developed by British security forces at Heathrow to help spot potential terrorists.
Rob Wainwright, the chief of Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, said that 200 counter terrorism officers will be deployed to the Greek islands within weeks in an effort to thwart a “strategic”-level campaign byISIS to infiltrate terrorists into Europe.
The new task force will be deployed alongside Greek border guards and use technologies developed by British security forces at Heathrow to help spot potential terrorists.
“We have, in the past year and a half, seen a strategic decision by Isil to do that and carryout spectacular attacks of the type we saw in France in Brussels,” he told the Evening Standard.
“There will be further attempts at that kind of activity,” he added.
The Expressreports that the new deployment, which Europol originally announced in May, comes against the backdrop of a growing concern aboutISIS’s attempts to exploit the flow of refugees from Syria and other parts of the Middle East.
Europol said that last week its officials discovered several forged passports in a Greek refugee camp which officers believe were intended for use byISIS operatives.
European security agencies are also worried that more foreign fighters will be trying to return home as ISIS comes under increasing pressures in Syria and Iraq.
Wainwright said the counterterrorism operatives will be deployed on rotation to Greece and possibly Italy in the coming weeks.
“There will be a second line of defense. We hope to deploy some into the camps where the refugees, the asylum seekers, are being held,” Wainwright said.
The European Organization for Migration estimates 270,576 refugees have entered Europe by sea between 1 January and 24 August, most of them through Greece and Italy.
Some 3,165 have died, or have been reported missing, in the Mediterranean during this 8-month period.
Security concerns increased this week after it emerged a rescue boat operating in the southern Mediterranean had been shot at and boarded by armed men.
Europol facilitates cooperation among EU national police forces against organized crime and terrorism. Wainwright, a former MI5 intelligence analyst, has been the director of the agency since 2009.
Changing who sits in the Oval Office simply isn’t enough to fix the problems created by the nation’s ever-growing federal government.
That’s why a group of activists will gather in Williamsburg, Va., next month to host a practice Convention of the States, to explore options state legislatures have for combating constitutional abuses out of Washington.
The Convention of the States project notes of the power to combat runaway government in Washington via Article V of the United States Constitution.
“What America needs right now is more than a change in personnel; we need a change in structure,” Michael Farris, cofounder of the project, said.
Article V provides:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The movement’s proponents, among them former Sen. Tom Coburn, say that the current political climate is the perfect time for Americans to harness the power of Article V.
“This convention comes at a crucial time for our country. Americans rightly have lost confidence in the federal government and realize we must act to protect against additional illegitimate executive orders, attacks on the Bill of Rights, and continued irresponsible spending and waste in Washington,” Coburn said.
The idea of a convention is popular with conservative leaders in states throughout the U.S. and Coburn believes the dry run will serve to show that it is a very viable option to force change in Washington. According to him and other supporters of the movement, the group is very close to having the support of leaders in the required number of 34 states to hold a real convention.
Liberal journalist: Clinton ‘beholden to scumbags’
Describing the Clinton Global Initiative’s events as “creepy,” a journalist and onetime moderator for forums hosted by the foundation says there’s no doubt the Clintons sold access.
“I’ve spent a decent amount of time at the Clinton Global Initiative,” Davidson said during a podcast for Slate.
And there is a real creepy vibe, to me, personally, at the Clinton Global Initiative.
It seems, to me, that it is all about buying access. It is incredibly expensive just to go to the thing … and there are sort-of these explicit ways in which you get access. You pay more money to get more access to political leaders and to really rich people and to big corporate leaders.
There’s this kinda creepy theatre that happens where you have the CEO of Coca-Cola or IBM or whatever or GE up there with President Clinton and they’re just bathing each other in love over how generous and wonderful they are and how much they care about the world and all these earnest people applauding and thrilled.
After concluding that “it really feels gross,” Davidson said his opinion of the organization hasn’t hurt his view of Clinton as a presidential candidate.
“I can’t wait to vote for her,” Davidson said. “If I had time I’d go move to Missouri or Ohio or somewhere so my vote could actually count.”
A group of three consumer protection advocates filed a lawsuit against General Mills over claims that some of its products contain only natural ingredients.
Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association with the Richman Law Group filed the suit.
According to the complaint, General Mills mislabels several of its popular granola bars as “made with 100% natural whole grain oats.”
According to the complaint: “The oat products at issue are not ‘made with 100% Natural whole grain oats,’ but instead the oats contain the chemical glyphosate, a potent biocide and human endocrine disruptor, with detrimental health effects that are still becoming known.”
“No reasonable consumer, seeing these representations, would expect that the oats or any ingredients in the products to contain something that is unnatural.”
We’ve told you before about corporations using “natural” labeling to sell chemical-laden foods to unwitting consumers.
Basically, “natural” means the product was made using ingredients found on earth — which can include some 10,000 unhealthy additives.
Big food manufacturers are increasingly mislabeling foods containing dangerous ingredients and harmful chemicals as healthy, natural options—and American shoppers are being fooled daily.
Research just released from Consumer Reports shows that last year about 62 percent of Americans opted to buy so-called “natural” foods, believing they were free of genetically modified organisms, artificial ingredients and colors, chemicals and pesticides.
To our Founding Fathers it was obvious, or “self-evident,” that self-government, or a democratic republic, could only be perpetuated by the self-governed. Reflecting these precepts, a contemporary German writer to the Founders, J. W. von Goethe, stated: “What is the best government? — That which teaches us to govern ourselves.” And, a later, prominent 19th Century minister, Henry Ward Beecher, simply said: “There is no liberty to men who know not how to govern themselves.” Self-governance consists of self-regulation of our behavior, ambitions and passions. To this end, the Founders fundamentally believed that the ability to govern ourselves rests with our individual and collective virtue (or character).
John Adams stated it this way, “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation ofRepublics.” In this regard, the revolutionary war was as much a battle against “the corruption of 18th century British high society,” as it was against financial oppression. While the Founders and American colonists were very concerned with their civil liberty and economic freedom, demanding “no taxation without representation,” they were equally concerned with their religious liberty, particularly in preserving their rights of individual conscience and public morality. With respect to the vital need for virtue in order to establish and maintain a republic, the Founders were in complete harmony:
George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”
Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” 
James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”
Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”
Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”
John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual and societal governance.
 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, The Maxims and Reflections of Goethe, translated by Bailey Saunders (MacMillan & Co., New York, 1906), Maxim No. 225.
 William Drysdale,ed., Proverbs from Plymouth Pulpit, Selected from the Writings and Sayings of Henry Ward Beecher (D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1887), p. 72.
 John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, April 16, 1776. A. Koch and W. Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy Adams (Knopf, New York, 1946), p. 57.
 Marvin Olasky, Fighting for Liberty and Virtue (Regnery Publishing, Washinton D.C., 1996) p. 142.
 See, e.g., Id., Olasky, Fighting for Liberty and Virtue; Richard Vetterli and Gary Bryner,In Search of the Republic: Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government (Rowman & Littlefield, New Jersey, 1987).
 Victor Hugo Paltsits, Washington’s Farewell Address (The New York Public Library, 1935), p. 124.
 Washington to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788, John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 1939), 29:410.
 Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, (Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, Boston, 1840), 10:297.
Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 20, 1788. Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, 1891) 3:536.
 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1819. ME 15:234.
 William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Little, Brown, & Co., Boston, 1865), 1:22.
 Tryon Edwards, D.D., The New Dictionary of Thoughts – A Cyclopedia of Quotations(Hanover House, Garden City, NY, 1852; revised and enlarged by C.H. Catrevas, Ralph Emerson Browns and Jonathan Edwards, 1891; The Standard Book Company, New York, 1955, 1963), p. 337.
 John Adams, October 11, 1798, letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts. Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, (Little, Brown, and Co., Boston, 1854), 9:229
The public has been trained to think in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. The politicians and their elite bosses operate above the law and outside the law. For them, legal is what they say it is or is not.
Hillary Clinton personifies the system. The FBI and Department of (In)Justice – or, as some call it, the Department of Just Us – have always given the Clinton crime family a pass to operate outside the law. But it is not just them.
Politicians, bureaucrats, judges and their friends are untouchables. Yes, occasionally one or two are sacrificed on the altar in the name of “justice,” but it is nothing more than a ruse that keeps the system in place.
There are clearly privileged classes in America. It is those in political power backed by illegal police power. They act against the people outside the law and the Constitution. It has become so obvious.
The system is now beyond resolution. We are in the final stages of economic, social and moral collapse.
To anyone who has studied history, this is no surprise. The Founding Fathers had much to say about it.
In “Of the Study of the Law in the United States,” James Wilson wrote in 1790:
Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.
In 1774 in “Emblematic Representations,” Benjamin Franklin wrote:
The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
In Novanglus No. 7, John Adams wrote in 1777:
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.
In a letter to David Ramsey written in 1786, Benjamin Rush said:
[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.
Who can honestly say we remain a nation of laws and not men? We are governed by an evil and licentious oligarchy.