↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 9th, 2017

PaulRyan joins Dan & Amy to discuss tax reform will pass and benefits for all Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=9Wh_qB5GMfQ

“When you clean out the tax system and get rid of a bunch of loopholes then K street and the loophole industry in Washington shrinks.” The philosophical change in the GOP tax plan is to get rid of loopholes and let people decide what they want to do with their own money.

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan joins Dan and Amy to discuss why tax reform will pass and how it will benefit all Americans.

Source: Will County News

Trilateral Commission exposed its own secret

When the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission exposed its own secret

From Personal Liberty
This originally appeared at NoMoreFakeNews.com on November 27, 2017, and is reprinted with permission.

Now and then, I republish an explosive interview with two Rockefeller Trilateral Commission members, highlighting how much political power can be controlled in a few hands.

People often misunderstand how the game works. In the area of U.S. foreign policy, for example, they focus on the long-standing rats’ nest called the State Department.

Well, they should. But that bureaucracy implements policy. It doesn’t really formulate the basics. The basics come from higher on the food chain.

The Globalist movement—within which the Trilateral Commission is a leading force—dictates a “one-world” theme. Separate nations and their power should be melted down and folded into one planet-wide management system.

This system would ultimately determine worldwide production quotas for goods and services, and their distribution. Energy, in particular, is a prime target. How much will be created? Who will benefit? Who will suffer?

The U.S. federal government and other governments around the world are currently trying to bring us closer to that “utopian day.”

Who sits in the shadows pulling their strings?

Here is another question that has the same answer: who is in charge of undermining free markets and thus taking down economies?

One group has been virtually forgotten. Its influence is enormous. It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary; James Jones, National Security Advisor; Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee; Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a U.S. reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the U.S. Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House. He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating U.S. economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the U.S., UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [U.S.] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [U.S.] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

U.S. economic and political policy — run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission.

When Jimmy Carter won the presidential election in 1976, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic competitors, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”

Source: Will County News

What was intended with the 2nd Amendment

Steve Balich Editors note:      The Illinois Constitution Article 7 Section 1 states: The State Militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.

What the Founders intended with the 2nd Amendment

This week the Supreme Court refused to hear two cases involving gun rights. In one, a federal appeals court had upheld a Maryland law that banned so-called “assault weapons” and detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

In upholding the ban, the appeals court used the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s restrictions on gun ownership in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In light of SCOTUS’s refusal to uphold a right afforded every person, we felt it was time to remind SCOTUS – and Americans – what the Founding Fathers had to say about guns.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.—Amendment II

What did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

According to An American Dictionary of the English Language, Vol. II by Noah Webster, published in 1828, the definition of “regulated” is this: “adjusted by rule, method or forms, put in good order, subjected to rules or restrictions.”

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives one more definition dating from 1690 and relating to troops: “properly disciplined.”

So well regulated, to the Founders, meant a group of troops put in good order and properly disciplined. So who were these troops?

The word “militia” is a Latin abstract noun meaning “military service,” not an “armed group,” and that is how the Latin-literate Founders used it. The collective term for army or soldiery was “volgus militum.” So they did not mean a standing army or a regular national guard.

The Militia Act of 1792 further defines it as the whole people, particularly, “every able-bodied man” from age 18 to 45.

Remember that the Founding Fathers had just participated in a bloody revolution. They feared a standing army. When there was a need for an “army,” men came from the surrounding area, bringing whatever weapons they possessed, to be led by a man or men with previous military service. Sometimes the State provided them with weapons, ammunition, horses, etc., if they did not have their own.

As Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts put it: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”

In his An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787, Webster wrote: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Tench Coxe described the militia this way: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”

In a speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason said: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include… all men capable of bearing arms. … The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle,” wrote Richard Lee as The Federal Farmer.

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it,” Lee also wrote.

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” said Patrick Henry during the Virgina Ratifying Convention.

Thomas Paine wrote: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…”

And Samuel Adams said, “The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

It’s clear the Founders intended that everyone be armed — not just for hunting or for self-defense, which were givens, but to protect themselves from tyranny.

Finally, what is meant by “infringed”? Again, back to An American Dictionary of the English Language, this time Volume I: “Infringed — Broken; violated; transgressed.”

Further, infringe is defined: “To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. To break to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as to infringe a law. To destroy or hinder; as to infringe efficacy.”

Liberty lovers should see the 2nd Amendment as inviolate. Not only do laws being considered by the gun grabbers infringe on the 2nd Amendment; but many, if not most, of the laws already on the books infringe on the Amendment as well.

The 2nd Amendment does not grant Americans the “right to keep and bear arms.” That right is held by all at birth. What it does is acknowledge that right and restrict any infringement upon it.

The Founders understood the dangers inherent in a government that held the monopoly on violence. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to restrain government, not the people.

Source: Will County News

Thanks to Scalia, supposed 2nd Amendment-friendly SCOTUS strikes blow to gun rights

Thanks to Scalia, supposed 2nd Amendment-friendly SCOTUS strikes blow to gun rights

157 Shares

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court refused to hear two appeals of lower court rulings that restrict gun ownership: one in Maryland and one in Florida. In doing so it proved that far from being a “2nd Amendment friendly court” with justices gun owners could love — as Donald Trump campaigned on and has so often said – it remains a statist court that is hostile to individual liberty and believes “rights” guaranteed under the constitution are nothing more than privileges granted by the courts.

Or perhaps we could say that Trump fulfilled his promise of nominating a justice – Neil Gorsuch — who is in the mold of Antonin Scalia. And that is not a good thing.

The rulings SCOTUS declined to hear involved Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and Florida’s law prohibiting open carry of firearms. The justices, without comment, left Maryland’s ban in place and, in a separate case, refused to consider Florida’s open carry ban.

When SCOTUS overturned Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, short-sighted conservatives hailed the decision as a win for the 2ndAmendment and praised Scalia – who wrote the majority opinion – as a constitutional originalist and defender of rights. It was, at best, a hollow victory.

It is, in fact, Scalia’s opinion upon which the Maryland ban was upheld by a federal appeals court. That’s because Scalia wrote that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home… (Emphasis added).

Scalia went on to write that previous court rulings effectively limit “the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.” He then continued “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those `in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” (Emphasis added.)

Of course, what constitutes “dangerous and unusual weapons” is in the eyes of the beholder. And it was those points upon which the federal appeals court based its ruling that weapons like the AR-15 are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The appeals court pointed to the Supreme Court’s Hellerdecision, which included a line suggesting that states and cities could ban the M-16 rifle, a military version of the AR-15.

“We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage,” Judge Robert King wrote for the majority. The appeals court voted 10-4 to uphold the ban.

Maryland enacted its assault weapon ban after the 2012 shooting that left 20 children and six adults dead at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. The measure also bans detachable magazines that have a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

The Florida case involved Dale Lee Norman, who was arrested in 2012 while walking on a sidewalk with a handgun in a holster. Florida permits the carrying of licensed handguns outside the home, but the state requires the weapons to be concealed.

In urging the court not to hear the appeal, state officials said Florida, South Carolina and Illinois are the only states that allow carrying concealed weapons but bar carrying guns openly.

Not long before he died, the brilliant libertarian columnist William Norman Grigg opined on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholding the ban. He wrote:

A right that is subject to government-imposed limitations is not a right in any sense. The innate right of armed self-defense exists whether any government chooses to recognize it. What made the Second Amendment unique was its recognition of the fact that in the constitutional scheme, the government does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Scalia, like many statist jurists before him, insisted that the permissible civilian uses of firearms are all defined within that government-exercised monopoly on force; they are thus temporary concessions that can be redefined by our rulers at whim. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling thus offered no surprises to anyone who had understood the clear implications of Scalia’s ruling.

Source: Will County News