↓ Archives ↓

Archive → October, 2016

Jeffersonian conservatism


Jefferson PealeThis was originally published on The Abbeville Blog on October 18, 2016.

What is true conservatism? That question, more than anything else, is the argument raging in the Republican Party today — one side fully represented in the party’s establishment wing, while the other resides in the hearts of true patriots at the grassroots, those who carry the American Revolution’s sacred fire of liberty. Yet most true conservatives may not realize that their closely held philosophy of limited government originated in the South. It is a Southern institution and conservatives outside the South are espousing Southern values, whether they know it or not.

America’s political divide began as an ideological battle, and thus far the only one in our history, between two of President George Washington’s Cabinet officers, a fight that also pitted the two great regions against each other — Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton from New York and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson from Virginia. It is a clash that is still raging today. In essence, the real breakdown today is not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, but Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian. This is the sum total of our whole political dispute. As Professor Clyde Wilson has written, “Friends, you must have either Jefferson or Hamilton. All the fundamental conflicts in our history were adumbrated during the first decade of the General Government in the contest symbolized by these two men.”

The original Hamiltonians, based in New England, believed in a strong central government, a national banking system, fiat currency, a national debt, high tariffs and internal taxes, direct aid to corporations, loose construction of the Constitution, the suppression of civil liberties and, later on, an internationalist foreign policy.

Concentrated in the South, Jeffersonians, by contrast, believed in limited government, federalism, sound money, low taxes and tariffs, no national debt, government separation from banks, no support for corporations or big business, a strict construction of the Constitution, including the protection of civil liberties held by the people and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Simply put, the Hamiltonians believed in the merits of government; Jeffersonians trusted in the people to govern themselves.

Operating under the label of Federalists, Hamilton and his arguments carried the day during the Washington and Adams administrations, the first twelve years under the new Constitution. The government created a national bank (an early forerunner to the Federal Reserve), levied an array of internal taxes that included duties on land and alcoholand began running up a national debt, which Hamilton believed would be a “public blessing.” In 1798, the government suppressed civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts, a series of new laws designed specifically to quash the followers of Jefferson.

But Jefferson and his new Republican Party won a great victory in 1800, taking the White House and sweeping both houses of Congress, a triumph Jefferson himself predicted, which stopped the big government onslaught and killed the Federalist Party, but not Hamiltonian thought. President Jefferson immediately instituted what he termed in his first inaugural as “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This,” he said, “is the sum of good government.” As president, Jefferson cut spending, eliminated all internal taxes, repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts and pardoned all those prosecuted under it. He was no pseudo-conservative!

Over the next sixty years, for the most part, the nation was governed by Jeffersonian principles, operating in what would become the modern Democratic Party. Though it took some time, the Jeffersonians eventually repealed Hamilton’s entire program, including the ultimate destruction of the Bank of the United States and the elimination of the national debt under Andrew Jackson. Yet the great political divide remained and culminated in the War for Southern Independence, when the Jeffersonian South had finally reached the breaking point and realized that the new Lincoln government, based exclusively on Hamiltonian principles, would, most assuredly, intervene in the internal affairs of the Southern States and plunder them like never before with Lincoln’s economic program that included a high tariff designed to enrich the North, deplete the South and reward well-connected cronies such as railroad magnates and other corporate hacks.

Though he referred to himself as a “Henry Clay Tariff Whig,” Lincoln was, in fact, a Hamiltonian, who believed in the merits of big government. He claimed to hold the Declaration of Independence in the highest regard, but he once referred to the American Revolution as “a struggle for national independence by a single people.” His inference was that a “single people,” whom he considered Northerners and Southerners to be, could not legally break up, for it was one American family. This was one of his legalistic arguments against the right of secession, or in his way of thinking, his belief that he could hold the South in the Union by force and against Southern will. Under such a belief, Lincoln was an imperialist.

In a political sense, though, Lincoln was wrong. There is no such entity as the “American people,” not today and not then. Northerners and Southerners, even in Lincoln’s day, did not see themselves as residing in a single American family. Opinions abound, from both sides of the Mason and Dixon Line, that the two regions were polar opposites. And most sentiments were quite strong. One Mississippian, writing to former governor John A. Quitman in 1857, put it this way: “The descendants of the narrow-minded, sanctimonious, bigots, who landed at Plymouth Rock from the ‘Mayflower,’ and the descendants of ‘the Cavaliers of Virginia’ who landed at Jamestown are two peoples — and they must ever so remain. The high-toned gentlemen descended from the ‘cavaliers,’ and the ‘round head’ fools descended from the Psalm-singing Pharisees of New England, can never really become ‘one people.’”

Ellen Renshaw House of Tennessee, writing in her diary on May 25, 1865, said, “Our hope is gone, President Davis is a prisoner. He was captured more than two weeks ago with all his family. General Smith has surrendered, and the people of the South are slaves — to the vilest race that ever disgraced humanity.” Edmund Ruffin, in his diary account at the end of the war, referred to Northerners as “the vile Yankee race.” These sentiments were prevalent throughout the South, before and after the war.

Northerners also held similar views, though not necessarily as harsh. The famous diarist George Templeton Strong of New York City, a political conservative, though not a Jeffersonian, wrote in December 1860: “I fear Northerner and Southerner are aliens, not merely in social and political arrangements, but in mental and moral constitution. We differ like Celt and Anglo-Saxon, and there is no sufficient force… to keep us together against our will.” In another entry in January 1861, he wrote: “I fear we are two peoples, unable to live in peace under one feeble ‘federal’ government.” In other words, it might take a strong central government to force the two differing peoples to live together. This is something the Jeffersonian South did not want to see, but what the imperialistic-minded Lincoln had in mind all along.

Even foreigners saw the differences. The French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville, in his 1835 book, Democracy in America, wrote: “Two branches may be distinguished in the great Anglo-American family, which have … grown up without entirely commingling; the one in the South, the other in the North.”

These vast differences — between North and South — were reflected in their political philosophies and the way they believed the country should be governed, visions that were often miles apart, though not in the opinion of most academic historians, many who contend that political parties of the day were not all that different. Yet by the late 1850s, Southerners were moving closer and closer toward separation, which a great many Northerners, though not all, were unlikely to allow without a struggle.

The Northern intellectual, Orestes Brownson, who has been described as the “greatest writer of the 19th century,” understood this growing divide. As a New Englander himself, residing in Vermont, Brownson sized up the attitudes prevailing in his section of the country in an essay published in 1864 in Brownson’s Quarterly Review. “We have some madmen amongst us who talk of exterminating the Southern leaders and of New Englandizing the South. We wish to see the free-labor system substituted for the slave-labor system, but beyond that we have no wish to exchange or modify Southern society and would rather approach Northern society to it, than it to Northern society.”

Brownson went on to describe the mindset of the Yankee in a chilling similarity to modern-day liberals: “The New Englander has excellent points, but is restless in body and mind, always scheming, always in motion, never satisfied with what he has and always seeking to make all the world like himself, or as uneasy as himself. He is smart, seldom great; educated, but seldom learned; active in mind, but rarely a profound thinker; religious, but thoroughly materialistic: his worship is rendered in a temple founded on Mammon and he expects to be carried to heaven in a softly-cushioned railway car, with his sins carefully checked and deposited in the baggage crate with his other luggage to be duly delivered when he has reached his destination. He is philanthropic, but makes his philanthropy his excuse for meddling with everybody’s business as if it were his own and under pretense of promoting religion and morality, he wars against every generous and natural instinct and aggravates the very evils he seeks to cure.” This perfectly describes the Hamiltonian mindset. Jeffersonians, however, did not think this way at all.

Jefferson himself saw these differences very early and wrote about them more than six decades before secession. To his friend John Taylor of Caroline, Jefferson wrote, in his famous “reign of witches” letter in 1798, as if he were speaking of two differing people, one seeking to control, even conquer the other. The young country was “completely under that saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut,” who “ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.” New Englanders, he said, displayed a great “perversity of character,” which was a main reason for the “natural division of our parties.”

In 1861, Southerners, completely exacerbated by the threats of the North, determined to create a government of their own, one reflecting their principles, and they believed that they had every right to do so. Yet the Hamiltonian Lincoln denied the right of any state to secede from the Union. As he said in his first inaugural address, “Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this.”

By contrast, Jefferson also faced a secession movement upon his election to the presidency in 1800, as many New England states considered establishing their own Northern Confederacy rather than live under the rule of this radical Virginian. In his first inaugural address he dealt with the issue of sectional unhappiness far differently than Lincoln would 60 years later. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in the right of self-determination for all peoples; the Hamiltonian Lincoln clearly did not.

The Confederacy, as a government under Jefferson Davis, was administered on Jeffersonian principles, the polar opposite of Lincoln’s administration. The Confederate Constitution was a culmination of Jeffersonian Conservatism. It was much like the U.S. Constitution but with numerous important changes.

One key difference can be found in the Confederate Constitution’s Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, which gave the state legislature the power to impeach and remove “any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State.” This was the heart and soul of Confederate governing principles. If federal officials meddled in local affairs, they could be banished from the state. This was one of the crucial components of Jeffersonian political thought, designed solely to preserve federalism.

There were also other notable differences in the Confederate Constitution that fall along Jeffersonian lines: the president could serve only one six-year term and had a line item veto to control spending. It outlawed protective tariffs, banned the international slave trade, removed the “general welfare” clause, prohibited federally-funded internal improvements (today known as “earmarks”), required a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress for most appropriations, forbid recess appointments and prohibited persons of foreign birth who had not obtained citizenship from voting for any office on the state or federal level.

But the contrast with the Northern government was vast. Lincoln, and most presidents after him, being of the Hamiltonian mode of thinking, established all the central tenants of Hamilton’s political thought: a national banking system, a fiat currency, high protective tariffs, an income tax, money for corporations and the suppression of civil liberties. And as a result, the United States nearly lost its constitutional republic during this War of Northern Aggression and the later period of Reconstruction.

Most importantly, the destruction of republicanism culminated with Lincoln’s quashing of the federal system. States’ rights were crushed and buried. The very act of militarily blocking a state’s right to leave the Union did irreparable damage to the country and its republican form of government. “The war,” wrote Governor Richard Yates of Illinois in 1865, “has tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian idea, that ‘the best government is that which governs least.’ The war has not only, of necessity, given more power to, but has led to a more intimate prevision of the government over every material interest of society.” This last point was one of Hamilton’s main goals.

When Confederate General Richard Taylor, son of former President Zachary Taylor, returned home to his Louisiana plantation in 1865, he found that “society has been completely changed by the war. The [French] revolution of ‘89 did not produce a greater change in the ‘Ancien Regime’ than has this in our social life.” Historians, even those who lived through the conflict, understood the profound changes the war brought. George Ticknor wrote in 1869 that the war had left a “great gulf between what happened before it in our century and what has happened since, or what is likely to happen thereafter. It does not seem to me as if I were living in the country in which I was born.” In short, the war destroyed the Age of Jefferson.

Modern scholars have also made note of this fact. As the Hamiltonian James M. McPherson points out in Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, after the war

the old decentralized federal republic became a new national polity that taxed the people directly, created an internal revenue bureau to collect these taxes, expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts, established a national currency and a national banking structure. The United States went to war in 1861 to preserve the Union; it emerged from war in 1865 having created a nation. Before 1861 the two words ‘United States’ were generally used as a plural noun: ‘The United States are a republic.’ After 1865 the United States became a singular noun. The loose union of states became a nation.

And all of this at the hands of the Hamiltonian Party of Lincoln, which hoped to dominate the “new nation” as no other political entity had before it.

Other scholars have also noted at how profoundly the nation had been changed. Lincoln and his party, writes historian Heather Cox Richardson, “transformed the United States.” Before the war the “national government did little more than deliver the mail, collect tariffs and oversee foreign affairs. By the time of Appomattox, the United States had changed.” Wartime Republicans constructed “a newly active national government designed to promote” a worldview of an industrialized America, with Washington playing an increasingly interventionist role. “A strong central government dominated the postwar nation. It boasted a military of over a million men; it carried a national debt of over $2.5 billion; and it collected an array of new internal taxes, provided a national currency, distributed public lands, chartered corporations and enforced the freedom of former slaves within state borders.” Each of these developments flew in the face of Jeffersonian Conservatism.

Reconstruction, like the war before it, continued the goal of destroying the old Jeffersonian Union and erecting a new one in its place, one based on government control rather than on individual liberty. Many of the Radical Republicans, the “madmen” referred to by Brownson, like Thaddeus Stevens, sought to ethnically-cleanse the former Confederacy during Reconstruction. Unlike Lincoln, they believed the Southern states had, in fact, seceded from the Union, or at least used it to their advantage, viewing the South as conquered territory to be treated as such. Senator Zachariah Chandler of Michigan said it this way: “A rebel has sacrificed all his rights. He has no right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. Everything you give him, even life itself, is a boon which he has forfeited.”

Radical Republicans hated the South and Southern institutions, particularly the Jeffersonian philosophy of government, which they hoped to destroy for good. They wanted the complete subjugation of the region, vindictive punishment of the rebels, the overthrow of all Southern state governments and the confiscation of all land and homes. Peoples from the North and West would then be sent to the South to repopulate it, ensuring that it would remain firmly Republican and solidly Hamiltonian. In other words, they wanted to make the South like the North, sweeping away all vestiges of Southern culture and politics. Lincoln’s Navy Secretary, Gideon Wells, the lone conservative Democrat in the Cabinet, called the Radical plan “an atrocious scheme of plunder and robbery.”

But neither the war nor Radical Reconstruction killed Jeffersonianism completely; it received a brief revival under Grover Cleveland, a rare Northern proponent of Jefferson’s ideas. As a conservative, Cleveland saw himself as one who could, as president, put the spilled milk back in the bottle, or at least some of it. He believed himself to be in the mold of the nation’s founders, especially Jefferson, who could reverse the destruction of political institutions the war and Reconstruction had wrought, just as the Sage of Monticello turned back the destructive Federalist tide in 1800. This is why the Hamiltonians of his day fought so hard against his election as president, for Cleveland stands out as the lone Jeffersonian among all presidents from Lincoln to Obama, a statesman who held as tight to those principles as any president in American history.

First elected in 1884, after twenty-four consecutive years of Hamiltonian White House rule, Cleveland became the first Jeffersonian to serve as president since before the war. A quarter century of corruption, profligate spending, high taxes and ever-expanding government had been the norm. When Cleveland entered office, he instituted honest government, ended presidential luxury, slashed the bureaucracy, halted out-of-control spending by vetoing a record 414 bills, protected the massive budget surplus that Republicans were all too eager to spend and reduced the national debt by 20 percent. Not a bad record for a first term.

In 1888, he was defeated for a second consecutive term by Benjamin Harrison, although he won the popular vote. Though determined not to seek another term, he quickly changed his mind when he saw what the Hamiltonians under President Harrison were doing to the country and what some were doing within his beloved Jeffersonian Democratic Party, moving it closer to the Party of Lincoln in the hopes of being more successful in future elections. In 1892, Cleveland threw his hat back in the presidential ring and, like Jefferson in 1800, took back the White House and led his party to a sweep of both houses of Congress, the first time Jeffersonians controlled the entire government since 1858 under James Buchanan. The future seemed bright indeed.

Yet, sadly, fate intervened. During his second term, from 1893 to 1897, Cleveland faced a severe economic depression, one that had resulted from the massive re-imposition of Hamiltonian fiscal policies during the preceding Harrison Administration. A month before Cleveland took his second oath of office, the economy began to crumble. And even though neither he nor his party had anything to do with the collapse, and even though he used Jeffersonian methods to end it within two years, Cleveland and the Democrats received all the blame. In the mid-term election in 1894 Democrats were routed, losing both houses of Congress and, in 1896, the Hamiltonians were back in charge with the election of William McKinley.

In my view, the Panic of 1893 killed Jeffersonian Conservatism for good, as Republicans successfully spun it as a “Democratic Depression,” which seemed plausible when prosperity returned under McKinley. To get around that label, Democrats began shedding Jeffersonian principles and began embracing more Hamiltonian ideas. By the early 20th century, one disgruntled Jeffersonian Democrat wrote that the old party “as we knew it, is dead.”

In 1912, after 16 years in the political wilderness, Democrats managed to rebound and elect Woodrow Wilson to the Presidency, but even though he had Southern roots, he was no Jeffersonian, and his two terms showed him to be more progressive than any president since Lincoln, a trend that has continued for the last century. As the columnist George Will has written, “We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country.” And so it is. The Southern political philosophy of Jeffersonian Conservatism that died with Grover Cleveland has never been resurrected, for today we have no major party that espouses those values. It is only alive in the hearts of true Sons of the South.

— Ryan Walters

Ryan Walters is and independent historian and the author of “The Last Jeffersonian: Grover Cleveland and the Path to Restoring the Republic.” More from Ryan Walters

Source: Will County News

FBI probing new Clinton emails

FBI probing new Clinton emails

The FBI is probing new emails related to Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said in a Friday letter.

“In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony,” Comey wrote.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” he added.

“Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony,” Comey concluded.

Stocks turned negative after the report of the new probe. Many analysts have said that markets were pricing in a Clinton victory in November.

Source: Will County News

Wealth is now debt

Wealth is now debt


153552318Debt has become the currency of the world at this point.

No longer is money the prime driver of individual, national or corporate wealth.

It seems that now that the central banks run the world, and low interest rates are the norm — money is no longer as important as it used to be.

Corporate and sovereign debt are at record levels because there are ways for financial institutions to make money from this debt mountain.

People talk about the $19 trillion U.S. deficit but don’t realize that one single bank — Deutsche Bank — is holding $42 trillion in derivatives. And the thing about those derivatives is they are leveraged plays on the underlying value of the currencies and companies they represent.

They’re not hard assets… they do not indicate or contain the value of anything in reality. They are like Facebook friends compared with real, live friends. They exist, but they aren’t really a reflection of you as a real person.

And this is the danger of a derivatives-driven market and debt-driven society.

Bob Livingston has been saying for years that there is a larger effort at play here to supplant money and replace it with debt for individuals and so allow the state and corporations to reign over the citizenry, since they control all aspects of the currency economy. A recent piece of his really hit the nail on the head. Here’s an excerpt:

“Since U.S. “money” (and the money of the whole world) is bank credit and since bank credit is created by government and commercial banks, then the “national debt” represents bank credit passed or “loaned” upon an unsuspecting public for their real assets and labor.

Translated: Modern money (bank credit) expropriates wealth. In truth then, the huge reported “national debt” is how much wealth the government has stolen from the American people — not how much the government owes.

The “national debt” propaganda covers the fraud that our real assets and real wealth are flowing to the government for exchange ofgovernment-created credit. Just try to get it back!

Yes, indeed, this is witchcraft that reverses our thought processes. And yes, the national debt is an asset to the government, not a liability. Real assets stolen with bank credit are assets to the government, not debt.

Proof: When the local commercial bank “loans” you money (credit) that they create with a bookkeeping entry, this transaction appears on their books as an asset (a deposit) to the bank and a liability (debt) to the borrower who pledged real assets as collateral. Yes, your debt is the bank’s asset. This same system works with the U.S. monetary system.”

This is the system we all now live under — not just Americans, but everyone in the world, First World to Third World.

And it means you want to get out of this cycle as soon as possible. Because the pendulum always swings in both directions and we’re getting close to a point of inflection regarding interest rate manipulation with zero and negative interest.

When it swings the other way you can be prepared by sitting with cash, precious metals and other hard assets. Basically, you have to reverse your thinking in this area as well, and realize that all the stores of value that are ‘worthless’ today, will become increasingly valuable in coming months and years.

For example, recently gold was pushed down — although it’s still up 20 percent for the year — because people are expecting the Fed to raise rates by the end of the year.

But longer term, even if the Fed raises, it won’t be by much and Europe and Japan certainly will not follow suit. Short term gold may be hurt, but long term it will be the dollar that takes the brunt of it and gold will start its rally again.

— GS Early

Source: Will County News

Truth is the enemy of the state

Truth is the enemy of the state


julian assangeThere is a saw that comes from Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” that “the truth will out.” But not if government has its way.

That’s because truth is the enemy of the state. The state, meaning the apparatus of government, is “the system” that controls the American people.

Most people believe they control the political system through elections. Little do they know that the government and the corporate state own and control the state and the people. In other words, the system is rigged, as Donald Trump says. The system must keep this information invisible and it does so through constant conditioning of the public mind.

Now consider what has happened and is happening to Julian Assange. Consider Edward Snowden.

Assange created WikiLeaks in 2006, exposing, among other things, malfeasance in the conduct of Bush the Lesser’s “War on Terror.” Progressive Democrats loved Assange then.

But by 2010, with George W. Bush out of power and Barack Obama continuing old wars and starting new ones, the truths that were being outed by WikiLeaks were hitting too close to home. WikiLeaks got its hands on a treasure trove of State Department and Pentagon emails and documents being dispatched across the globe.

I wrote at the time in “A war on the truth,” that what WikiLeaks was revealing was:

…the result of a secretive, unaccountable and over-powerful government; a perfidious empire that seeks to rule the world by guile, cunning or force, if necessary. And the response by the United States government and by authorities in some of the U.S.’s puppet states — like Great Britain, which arrested Assange, and Sweden, which brought spurious charges of rape against him — demonstrate the length the ruling elites will go to suppress the truth.

Truth is the enemy of a totalitarian regime. Fooling, lying, spying: That is the way of the totalitarian regime. Fooling, lying to and spying on friends and enemies, and even worse, its own citizens.

Just before I wrote that, we now know, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was contemplating various ways to shut WikiLeaks down. During a November meeting, sources say, Clinton suddenly blurted out, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

According to sources present at the meeting:

The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Clinton and other top administration officials knew the compromising materials warehoused in the CableGate stash would provide critics and foreign enemies with a treasure trove of counterintelligence. Bureaucratic fears about the CableGate release ultimately proved to be well founded by Clinton, her inner circle and her boss in the White House.

Efforts to shut down WikiLeaks included an American intelligence-initiated operation to entrap Assange in a phony rape charge. The U.S. government also pressured PayPal, VISA and MasterCard to shut down donations to WikiLeaks. The Swedish bank handling Assange’s legal defense fund was pressured by the U.S. government to freeze the account. The firm hosting WikiLeaks’ website was pressured to shut the site the down.

Now WikiLeaks is revealing widespread corruption, vote rigging, media manipulation and other damning evidence against the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton and her minions. WikiLeaks and Assange are prying the lid off the propaganda machine and exposing the corrupt system.

In response, U.S. intelligence (an oxymoron) initiated another effort to entrap Assange in a sex-related scandal; this time by connecting him with a phony “dating site” and alleging he solicited sex with an 8-year-old girl.

John Kerry’s State Department pressured Ecuador to cut off Assange’s internet connection. There is a new move afoot to figure a way to pry him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and turn him over to U.S. authorities, where he will no doubt disappear into the bowels of indefinite detention.

Only the power of propaganda keeps the people from overthrowing the U.S. government by force. So truth is the enemy of the state and the state will do everything it can to suppress it.

That’s not surprising. What is surprising is the vast number of people on both “sides” of the political spectrum outside of government who see truth seekers and truth disseminators like Assange, Snowden and Bradley Manning as enemies rather than friends of liberty.


Source: Will County News

Undercover Clinton Operative Just Exposed, Entire Republican Party FURIOUS

BREAKING: Undercover Clinton Operative Just Exposed, Entire Republican Party FURIOUS

 Nixon deletes 30 seconds of a recording


Paul Ryan has been running a not-so-secret shadow campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan have many things in common, such as progressiveness, open borders, amnesty, special interest lobbyists, and global worldviews. None of that coincides with Donald Trump’s “America first” approach, and that is very telling.

In a leaked WikiLeaks email, we see more collusion between Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton. It has been revealed that the Clinton campaign attempted to list a close relative of Paul Ryan as a potential Supreme Court pick.

There are thousands of Judges that could be selected as potential Supreme Court Justices, ask yourself why Hillary Clinton chose Paul Ryan’s relative. Pay to play? He is Speaker of the House that continues to do absolutely nothing to help Donald Trump and everything to help Hillary Clinton.

As Paul Joseph Watson described it:

She was confirmed without any Republican opposition in the Senate not once, but *twice*. She was confirmed to her current position in 2013 by unanimous consent – that is, without any stated opposition. She was also previously confirmed unanimously to a seat on the U.S. Sentencing Commission (where she became vice chair),” reads the email.

Her family is impressive. She is married to a surgeon and has two young daughters. Her father is a retired lawyer and her mother a retired school principal. Her brother was a police officer (in the unit that was the basis for the television show *The Wire*) and is now a law student, and she is related by marriage to Congressman (and Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan.


The timing of everything is truly astonishing, especially given that Paul Ryan indicated earlier this month that he could no longer support or defend Donald Trump for things he said eleven years ago.

It has also been rumored that Paul Ryan was involved in the plan to release the Billy Bush tapes against Donald Trump, which would be another move to help Hillary Clinton in this race and what he has wanted to do this entire time.

Paul Ryan is a liar and has betrayed the people that elected him, but it may appear that the American people are giving him what he deserves. A recent poll released this week indicated that more than two thirds of Republicans trust Donald Trump more than they do Paul Ryan to lead the GOP.

Just consider everything for a moment.

Paul Ryan’s close relative is being touted as a likely Clinton Supreme Court Justice choice, he has openly supported Clinton’s amnesty proposal, he has not supported Trump’s southern border wall proposal, he is allegedly the man that leaked the Billy Bush tapes against Trump, and he has not thrown his full support behind Donald Trump once this entire election cycle.

Every time something bad happens for Trump, Paul Ryan is the first one to criticize him because it gives him another reason to show his undercover support for Hillary Clinton.

At this point, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Democrat, Republican or undecided–but if you’re an American that wants a better future, no corruption, less government meddling with your life, less taxes so you can support your own family, more jobs, higher wages, better education without common core, and a secure country, then you must vote for Donald Trump.

Source: Will County News

Letter to the editor: Homer Township Fire Department Ballot Question

Homer Township Fire Department Ballot Question


Do not be fooled by the Homer Township Firefighters Union to take over the Board of Trustees.  If you want a real eye-opener, just look at all those six figure salaries, not including benefits given to the Fire District employees.  Now the union wants to take over the board so they can hire more people, have more benefits and make more money.  Just keep in mind the firefighters union has the money along with the funds and know how to get their people elected to take over total control of your fire department.  The international firefighters union in Washington DC employs a union boss with $100,000 plus annual expense account and a salary 3 times more than that.  They train Local Union Officials on “How to elect candidates ” that will support higher wages and benefits. The union president David Curtis told the Horizon over the summer that having the Trustees elected by the residents would mean better partnership for the union and trustees.  His words not mine.  Once this happens you as a taxpayer will never have a say in how much you will pay in taxes for your already overpaid fire department.  Any other time if a resident or even a business went out to petition the public to have trustees elected it would be a different story and could be valid. But in this case it is a public sector union thinking they can come out and take over.  Word on the street is that the firefighters union petitioned most of the seniors residential living and the elderly people who reside in their district to secure their 1200 signatures. I can only imagine what these elderly people were told.  At this time I am asking all voters to take a stand and vote NO on the Homer Township Fire Protection District Referendum by sending a clear message to the public sector unions that we still have and will always have a voice in the way things are done in this country.

Ted Neitzke, Homer Glen

Source: Will County News

Rigging the election Part 4 Project Veritas

This sting-within-a-sting is surprisingly similar to what the Daily Telegraph pulled on the pro-Trump Great America PAC a few weeks ago — namely, testing whether operatives in a candidate’s orbit would be willing to accept money from foreign sources to influence an election. The specific issue in the Telegraph sting was using a 501(c)(4) group to launder Chinese money en route to the PAC, which is illegal. A Republican consultant allegedly proposed having the (fake) Chinese donor’s contribution sent to a firm he owned, ostensibly as payment for services rendered, at which point the money would be donated by the firm to two 501(c)(4) organizations and then the C4s would donate in turn to the Super PAC. C4s aren’t required to disclose their donors, which would have made it difficult to trace the money back from the PAC to the Chinese donor.

The Project Veritas sting involves fewer steps. A donor arranged to send $20,000 from a shell company organized in Belize to Americans United for Change, a left-wing 501(c)(4) that’s been at the center of the recent Project Veritas videos. There’s no suggestion of laundering, but the contribution is obviously designed to influence an election — and C4s aren’t supposed to accept foreign money for that purpose. They can take foreign contributions to fund civic “education,” but not for political activities. Although that loophole is fairly easily exploited:

For 501(c)(4) nonprofits, also known as “social welfare” organizations, which include some of the biggest 2012 spenders, there’s a big upside to banking foreign money that’s not for pure politics, according to Owens. Tax law says 501(c)(4)s can’t make politics their primary purpose, and so these groups carefully track their spending so that more goes toward ostensibly nonpolitical activities than toward politics. An injection of nonpolitical foreign cash, Owens says, frees up other American money for overtly political ads or mailers.

An infusion of $20,000 from a foreign donor can be earmarked for “education,” freeing up $19,999 in the C4s’ treasury that was donated by Americans for new political activities. In effect the foreign donor is paying for the politicking even though formally he’s paying for educational stuff. Although maybe Americans United for Change thought that shell game would be too cute if the FEC came sniffing around after watching the video below. As you’ll see, the $20,000 donation ended up being returned — but only after AUFC had figured out that it’d been stung.

Most of that comes in the first third of the video. The rest is devoted to watching Bob Creamer peddle influence in return for the contribution, including legal help for a (fake) rich Syrian who wanted to come to the United States. As Phil Kerpen notes, he seems awfully vague at times about whether he’s working for the Clinton campaign or for an outside group like Democracy Partners and AUFC. There are supposed to be strict lines of separation legally between those entities, aren’t there? Exit question: How many people did PV have working on these stings? It seems like a dozen at least.


Source: Will County News

Black Lives Matter would be SHUT DOWN if people saw this…

Black Lives Matter would be SHUT DOWN if people saw this…

Getty Images

As the Left continues to embrace identity politics, there’s no shortage of groups pushing ideologies of victim-hood to win over converts. The most prominent on the national scene is the Black Lives Matter movement, which originated online following the acquittal of Trayvon Martin, and hit the streets following the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

Their message is clear: when it comes to policing, blacks are treated differently. Since originating, the number of martyrs their cause has claimed has grown, but setting aside those cases (most of which were completely justified), do the statistics confirm their narrative? The latest video produced for Prager University, titled “Are the Police Racist?” featured American Enterprise Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, gives a fantastic overview of the numbers, completely blowing the BLM narrative out of the water.

Source: Will County News

Christ’s Burial Place Exposed for First Time in Centuries

Exclusive: Christ’s Burial Place Exposed for First Time in Centuries

Restorers working in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Israel uncover stone slab venerated as the resting place of Jesus Christ.

View Images

The shrine that houses the traditional burial place of Jesus Christ is undergoing restoration inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

For the first time in centuries, scientists have exposed the original surface of what is traditionally considered the tomb of Jesus Christ. Located in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem, the tomb has been covered by marble cladding since at least 1555 A.D., and most likely centuries earlier.

“The marble covering of the tomb has been pulled back, and we were surprised by the amount of fill material beneath it,” said Fredrik Hiebert, archaeologist-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, a partner in the restoration project. “It will be a long scientific analysis, but we will finally be able to see the original rock surface on which, according to tradition, the body of Christ was laid.”

According to Christian tradition, the body of Jesus Christ was laid on a shelf or “burial bed” hewn from the side of a limestone cave following his crucifixion by the Romans in A.D. 30 or possibly 33. Christian belief says Christ was resurrected after death, and women who came to anoint his body three days after the burial reported that no remains were present.

WATCH: Scientists expose Jesus Christ’s last resting place for first time in the modern era during restoration work at Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

This burial shelf is now enclosed by a small structure known as the Edicule (from the Latin aedicule, or “little house”), which was last reconstructed in 1808-1810 after being destroyed in a fire. The Edicule and the interior tomb are currently undergoing restoration by a team of scientists from the National Technical University of Athens, under the direction of Chief Scientific Supervisor Professor Antonia Moropoulou.

The exposure of the burial bed is giving researchers an unprecedented opportunity to study the original surface of what is considered the most sacred site in Christianity. An analysis of the original rock may enable them to better understand not only the original form of the tomb chamber, but also how it evolved as the focal point of veneration since it was first identified by Helena, mother of the Roman emperor Constantine, in A.D. 326.

“We are at the critical moment for rehabilitating the Edicule,” Moropoulou said. “The techniques we’re using to document this unique monument will enable the world to study our findings as if they themselves were in the tomb of Christ.”

View Images

Workers begin removing the worn marble that has encased the original burial shelf for centuries, exposing a layer of fill material below.

Moment of Revelation

The doors to the church were shut early—hours before normal closing time, leaving a bewildered crowd of pilgrims and tourists standing in front of the towering wooden doors. Inside, a scrum of conservators in yellow hard hats, Franciscans in simple brown robes, Greek orthodox priests in tall black hats, and Copts in embroidered hoods surrounded the entrance to the Edicule, peering into its reaches. Rising above all of them was the façade of the early 19th-century shrine, its elaborate carvings obscured by iron beams and orange safety tape.

Inside the tomb, which usually glows with a faint constellation of wax candles, bright construction lighting filled the small cell, revealing tiny details that are usually overlooked. The marble slab that covers the holy bench—roughly 3 by 5 feet and carved from creamy marble—had been pulled away from the wall. Beneath it was a grey-beige stone surface. What is it? a conservator was asked. “We don’t know yet,” she replied. “It’s time to bring in the scientific monitoring tools.”

View Images

A Christian nun kneels in prayer at the “burial bed” of Christ inside the tomb shrine, known as the Edicule.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (also known as the Church of the Resurrection) is currently under the custody of six Christian sects. Three major groups—the Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Armenian Orthodox Church—maintain primary control over the site, and the Coptic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Syriac communities also have a presence there. Parts of the church that are considered common areas of worship for all of the sects, including the tomb, are regulated by a Status Quo agreement that requires the consent of all of the custodial churches.

Outside the Edicule, Thephilos III, the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem, stood watching the events with a serene smile. “I’m glad that the atmosphere is special, there is a hidden joy,” said the patriarch. “Here we have Franciscans, Armenians, Greeks, Muslim guards, and Jewish police officers. We hope and we pray that this will be a real message that the impossible can become the possible. We all need peace and mutual respect.”

Resurrecting a Sacred Shrine

The structural integrity of the early 19th-century Edicule has been a concern for decades. It suffered damage during a 1927 earthquake, and British authorities were forced to shore up the building in 1947 with unsightly exterior girders that remain to this day. Difficulties among the Status Quo representatives and a lack of financial resources have hindered its repair.

View Images

Church leaders listen to an update on the renovation work from Dr. Antonia Moropoulou, leader of the restoration team.

In 2015, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, with the agreement of the other two major communities, invited the National Technical University of Athens (which had previously led restoration projects on the Athenian Acropolis and the Hagia Sophia) to study the Edicule. The communities of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre agreed to restore the structure in March 2016, with work to be completed by the spring of 2017. Major donors to the $4-million-plus project include a royal benefaction from Jordan’s King Abdullah II, and $1.3-million gift from Mica Ertegun to the World Monuments Fund in support of the project.

The National Geographic Society, with the blessing of the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem and the other religious communities, formed a strategic alliance with the National Technical University of Athens for cultural heritage preservation. For an exclusive look at the restoration project, watch Explorer on National Geographic Channel, coming in November.

Source: Will County News

Chelsea Privately Declared War On Clinton Foundation in 2011

Chelsea Privately Declared War On Clinton Foundation in 2011


Chelsea Clinton’s bold decision in 2011 to launch an “internal investigation” into the finances of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative was the equivalent of a declaration of war by the first daughter and a bombshell about the financial mess she discovered at the foundation.

The latest revelation came out Tuesday in a new batch of WikiLeaks emailssent to and from Clinton confidant John Podesta, who now is Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman.

Two emails — one dated Nov. 12, 2011 and another dated Jan. 4, 2012 — show Chelsea was aggressively looking into the foundation’s money flows and talking to others about it.

Her actions worried President Bill Clinton’s long-time handler Doug Band, who complained to Podesta about Chelsea’s intervention into the internal operations of the foundation.

The disclosure suggests that Chelsea was shocked by what she found inside her parent’s organization that secured millions of dollars from despots, Eastern European tycoons, Arab Sheiks and foreign billionaires — all of whom also were seeking favors from her mom and dad.

In the 2011 email, Band complained to Podesta about Chelsea’s activity within the foundation, accusing her efforts to reform the organization as the behavior of  a “spoiled brat.”

But in his January 2012 email Band discloses that Chelsea, “is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation from cgi to the foundation.”

“CGI” is the Clinton Global Initiative where the Clintons annually assemble the world’s richest people and connect them to U.S. and foreign government officials.

Band additionally was worried to learn that Chelsea had shared her misgivings with members of the Bush family.

The Clinton aide tells Podesta in the 2012 email that Chelsea told “one of the Bush 43 kids” about the investigation adding, “I have heard more and more chatter” from Chelsea and that she is “talking about lots of what is going on internally to people.” He ends his email by stating to Podesta, “Not smart.”

It’s unclear if Chelsea discovered dirty money inside the foundation, conflicts of interest, “pay to play” deals that involved her mother, or gross financial mismanagement. She took her actions when her mother was secretary of state.

The disclosure will likely accelerate a number of congressional investigations into the foundation that have been simmering in both the House and the Senate.

The emails also are likely to put the spotlight on Band and the company he created called Teneo. Congress already has an investigation underway about whether it had undue access to the Obama administration, especially at the Department of State when Hillary was secretary .

Reportedly, Teneo was able to get its clients — many of whom also were Clinton Foundation donors — meetings with Clinton at the Department of State.

Prior to Tuesday’s email, it was clear Chelsea not only investigated her parent’s foundation, but took strong steps to try to reform it.

She was there when the foundation fired KDB, its tiny, Midwestern accounting firm. She also personally recruited McKinsey & Company friend and colleague Eric Braverman to become the new CEO. And Chelsea widened the board from a handful of Clinton insiders to a dozen while serving as its vice-chairman.

Significantly, when Pricewaterhousecoopers was hired to replace KDB — which a federal oversight board reprimanded citing many auditing ‘deficiencies” — the outside PWC review resulted in a total restatement of four years of Clinton Foundation financial statements.

However, although Chelsea is still vice-chairman of the foundation, she has taken many hits from inside it by her parent’s old cronies and they appear to have prevailed.

Only months after Braverman arrived after signing a lucrative $395,000 employment contract, he abruptly quit. Bruce Lindsey, a long-time Clinton hand who Braverman had replaced, is now back running the foundation.

It’s unclear if Braverman resigned or if he was pushed out by old Clinton loyalists.

Band and other long time Bill Clinton pals had a lot to lose with a Chelsea-led investigation.

Historically, the foundation was run by a small group of old Clinton loyalists, including long-time aide Bruce Lindsey, Terence McAuliffe, now the Democratic governor of Virginia, and Cheryl Mills, who was Hillary’s chief of staff at the State Department.

The small board violated the nonprofit world’s most elemental set of “best practices” which call upon tax exempt groups to have a strong, outside board to oversee programs.

The foundation also failed to set up strong oversight committees to review the foundation’s financial transactions, decide executive compensation, evaluate senior staff, formulate business practices, establish ethical standards and intervene to prevent conflicts of interests.  The foundation had none of these.

The foundation also operated programs overseas in developing countries with weak banking laws and lax government oversight where bribes and corruption were rampant.

Band had the most to lose because he had a seat within the foundation and was CEO of Teneo a consulting firm that tried to monetize the foundation’s activities into handsome profits.  Judicial Watch, the watchdog group called Teneo, “Clinton, Inc.”

Band called Teneo a “global advisory firm” which allowed him to mix foreign companies, Clinton donors and eventually some of the work with Secretary Clinton at the State Department.

Teneo also intermingled its work with the Clinton camp.  Bill Clinton was a paid consultant. Huma Abedin, when she served as deputy chief of staff at the State Department also served as a paid “senior advisor” to Teneo.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating the relationship between Teneo, Abedin with Clinton Foundation aides.

Follow Richard on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


Source: Will County News