Mitch McConnell Says He Will Help Hillary Defeat Trump

Mitch McConnell Says He Will Help Hillary Defeat Trump If the GOP leadership cannot keep Trump from taking the nomination.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.I.N.O.) told establishment Republicans that the GOP would actively destroy Donald Trump’s election. 

The upper echelons of the the Republican Party do NOT care what the American people want.  The American voters mean NOTHING to the establishment  Republicans.  The Republican party is willing to go nuclear and destroy the party before they will allow the American voter dictate who will be the Republican front runner. 

 

Trump is almost surely going to win the nomination  The New York Times, Republican sources confirm that party leadership is planning to destroy Trump and give Hillary Clinton the win rather than let him have control of the GOP.

 

To rally  the Republican establishment, McConnell has hatched an unthinkable tactical retreat: Let Hillary Clinton win and focus on maintaining control over the Senate.

While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination. 

McConnell  is assuring the Republican elites  that, if it Trump can NOT be stopped then the plan is to run negative ads destroying Trump.   This will be done to appease Republican senators seeking re-election. 

McConnell has raised the possibility of helping Republican voters support President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the Republican donor lunches.

Mitch McConnell is floating the idea of tanking his party’s own candidate for president over sandwiches at lunch.

McConnell does NOT care that the American people want Trump in the White House.  


McConnell does NOT care that the American people have voted their consciousness. 


McConnell sees the American people as meaningless and simply an irritant when it comes to who should or should not be in the White House. 


McConnell, like so many other in the Republican party are simply (R.H.I.N.O.'s)  Republican's in Name Only

If this all sounds insane, then welcome to the Republican Party in 2016.

The saddest part in this scheme is that McConnell’s plan probably won’t even work – at least not in the way he hopes. For one thing, Trump has run his entire campaign on being anti-everything the current “establishment” Republican Party stands for. If his rabid supporters catch wind of the fact that R.I.N.O.'S senators like Mitch McConnell are lining against him, that will only make him more popular. Trump’s been saying the party is against him all along. This only confirms it.

McConnell is Deliberately, Willfully, and with forethought leading Senate Republicans into surrendering the White House to Hillary Clinton.

McConnell, a politician, who thinks that he is above the law,  has decided that he will use his political power to BLOCK the American People's choice of Donald Trump for President of the United States. All because he doesn't like the fact that Donald Trump will not bow down and kiss his ring. 

Some info excerpted from http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/27/panicking-mitch-mcconnell-says-gop-will-help-hillary-beat-trump-if-he-wins-the-nomination/

The Fix is In

While most of us already know the system is rigged and our votes aren’t worth the electronic voting machine we type them into regardless of which side of the carpet we’re voting on.  

This Democrat party's nomination between Hillary vs. Bernie has proven, without a doubt, that the American people's vote are meaningless.

Hillary will win the Dem nomination no matter what because she already has all the super delegates. 

The party Democrats have already been told by the DNC chair that their votes are worthless.   It’s blatant and overt and everyone knows it.  Hillary already has all the super delegates in her pocket so there’s no way Bernie can possibly win anyway.
So why are they even continuing this charade?
If you think Bernie Sanders is riding high after a commanding victory in New Hampshire and virtual tie in Iowa, it’s all an illusion.  
Bernie is up 36 to 32 in the delegate count, but add the “super” delegates, and Clinton is absolutely crushing him. Those delegates aren’t bound to their state results, and have free reign to vote at the convention for whomever they want. The American Democratic voter has no say in the party's nomination.  The American people are NOT party to the election process.  The Democratic Party has finally tipped the scale into open Communism. 
According to The Associated Press, the total with those all-powerful super-voters – Clinton’s up 481 to 55.
The American Democratic voter does NOT matter! You can feel all the Bern you want, but you are just a slave, and slaves have no voice in politics.  


The reality is your vote has ZERO value!
Hillary does not even need people misplacing votes, cheating at coin tosses or card draws.
The backroom deals have been made. The system is rigged.
Why don’t they just go ahead and hold the queen’s coronation ceremony now?

 

Someinfo excerpted from http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and a 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter...

 

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis:

---

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

 

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated." 

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.' 

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; 

and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

They have Stolen the Past from the Present so in the End there is Only Their Future

Professor Patrick Deneen reveals the hidden truth behind America's fallen educational system.  It is not broken at all, in fact, it is working exactly as conceived by those who want a One World Government.  In removing any cultural moorings, political affiliations, or even human connections the hidden educators have erased America from the minds of it's children. 
 
Professor Deneen goes on to say...."My students are know-nothings. They are exceedingly nice, pleasant, trustworthy, mostly honest, well-intentioned, and utterly decent. But their brains are largely empty, devoid of any substantial knowledge that might be the fruits of an education in an inheritance and a gift of a previous generation. They are the culmination of western civilization, a civilization that has forgotten nearly everything about itself, and as a result, has achieved near-perfect indifference to its own culture.

 

It’s difficult to gain admissions to the schools where I’ve taught – Princeton, Georgetown, and now Notre Dame. Students at these institutions have done what has been demanded of them:  they are superb test-takers, they know exactly what is needed to get an A in every class (meaning that they rarely allow themselves to become passionate and invested in any one subject); they build superb resumes. They are respectful and cordial to their elders, though easy-going if crude with their peers. They respect diversity (without having the slightest clue what diversity is) and they are experts in the arts of non-judgmentalism (at least publically). They are the cream of their generation, the masters of the universe, a generation-in-waiting to run America and the world.

Related: The Chaos of College Curricula

But ask them some basic questions about the civilization they will be inheriting, and be prepared for averted eyes and somewhat panicked looks. Who fought in the Peloponnesian War? Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? How did Socrates die? Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Canterbury Tales? Paradise Lost? The Inferno?


Who was Saul of Tarsus? What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? Why does the Magna Carta matter? How and where did Thomas Becket die? Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? His first Inaugural? How about his third Inaugural?  What are the Federalist Papers?


Some students, due most often to serendipitous class choices or a quirky old-fashioned teacher, might know a few of these answers. But most students have not been educated to know them. At best, they possess accidental knowledge, but otherwise are masters of systematic ignorance. It is not their “fault” for pervasive ignorance of western and American history, civilization, politics, art and literature. They have learned exactly what we have asked of them – to be like mayflies, alive by happenstance in a fleeting present.

Related: Courses without Content

Our students’ ignorance is not a failing of the educational system – it is its crowning achievement. Efforts by several generations of philosophers and reformers and public policy experts — whom our students (and most of us) know nothing about — have combined to produce a generation of know-nothings. The pervasive ignorance of our students is not a mere accident or unfortunate but correctible outcome, if only we hire better teachers or tweak the reading lists in high school. It is the consequence of a civilizational commitment to civilizational suicide. The end of history for our students signals the End of History for the West.


During my lifetime, lamentation over student ignorance has been sounded by the likes of E.D. Hirsch, Allan Bloom, Mark Bauerlein and Jay Leno, among many others. But these lamentations have been leavened with the hope that appeal to our and their better angels might reverse the trend (that’s an allusion to Lincoln’s first inaugural address, by the way). E.D. Hirsch even worked up a self-help curriculum, a do-it yourself guide on how to become culturally literate, imbued with the can-do American spirit that cultural defenestration could be reversed by a good reading list in the appendix. Broadly missing is sufficient appreciation that this ignorance is the intended consequence of our educational system, a sign of its robust health and success.

 

Books for Book-o-Phobes

We have fallen into the bad and unquestioned habit of thinking that our educational system is broken, but it is working on all cylinders. What our educational system aims to produce is cultural amnesia, a wholesale lack of curiosity, history-less free agents, and educational goals composed of content-free processes and unexamined buzz-words like “critical thinking,” “diversity,” “ways of knowing,” “social justice,” and “cultural competence.”
Our students are the achievement of a systemic commitment to producing individuals without a past for whom the future is a foreign country, cultureless ciphers who can live anywhere and perform any kind of work without inquiring about its purposes or ends, perfected tools for an economic system that prizes “flexibility” (geographic, interpersonal, ethical).


In such a world, possessing a culture, a history, an inheritance, a commitment to a place and particular people, specific forms of gratitude and indebtedness (rather than a generalized and deracinated commitment to “social justice”), a strong set of ethical and moral norms that assert definite limits to what one ought and ought not to do (aside from being “judgmental”) are hindrances and handicaps.
Regardless of major or course of study, the main object of modern education is to sand off remnants of any cultural or historical specificity and identity that might still stick to our students, to make them perfect company men and women for a modern polity and economy that penalizes deep commitments. Efforts first to foster appreciation for “multi-culturalism” signaled a dedication to eviscerate any particular cultural inheritance, while the current fad of “diversity” signals thoroughgoing commitment to de-cultured and relentless homogenization.

We Must Know…What?

Above all, the one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere with this prime directive:  a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.


Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica – a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world’s first Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning “private individual.” Our education system produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.


They won’t fight against anyone, because that’s not seemly, but they won’t fight for anyone or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory.

Hillary Clinton emails

3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve, contain damning evidence of Western nations using NATO as a tool to topple Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.

 The NATO overthrow was not for the protection of the people, but instead it was to thwart Gaddafi’s attempt to create a gold-backed African currency to compete with the Western central banking monopoly.+ 

 The emails indicate the French-led NATO military initiative in Libya was also driven by a desire to gain access to a greater share of Libyan oil production, and to undermine a long term plan by Gaddafi to supplant France as the dominant power in the Francophone Africa region. 

 The April 2011 email, sent to the Secretary of State Hillary by unofficial adviser and longtime Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold,” reveals predatory Western intentions. 

The Foreign Policy Journal reports: The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: 

1: to obtain Libyan oil, 

2: ensure French influence in the region, 

3: increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically,

4: assert French military power, 

5:  to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.” 

 Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. 

The email makes clear that intelligence sources indicate the impetus behind the French attack on Libya was a calculated move to consolidate greater power, using NATO as a tool for imperialist conquest, not a humanitarian intervention as the public was falsely led to believe. 

  According to the email: This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA). 

 (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.) 

The email provides a peek behind the curtain to reveal how foreign policy is often carried out in practice. While reported in the media that the Western backed Libyan military intervention is necessary to save human lives, the real driving factor behind the intervention was shown to be the fact that Gaddafi planned to create a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency, which would lessen French influence and power in the region. 

The evidence indicates that when French intelligence became aware of the Libyan initiative to create a currency to compete with the Western central banking system, the decision to subvert the plan through military means began, ultimately including the NATO alliance.

It always WAS and always will be...

All about the money...

 



http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/#B1itEQrCxIMtupiX.16

Bloomberg Hates Freedom

Comic Jackie Mason continues to be one of this election cycle’s more amusing political pundits. Rightfully so, he has set his sights on future Dictator  Michael Bloomberg.

On the former mayor’s stance on gun control, Mason figures of the billionaire: “He’s standing there with 12 bodyguards, telling you that you shouldn’t have a gun to protect you, while he has 12 guys protecting him! As if his life counts, but yours is not important?"

 

 

Going on..."If guns are not important and nobody should have a gun to protect himself, why does Bloomberg have 12 bodyguards? Why doesn’t he stand there with 12 rabbis? Why do they have guns? Instead of guns they should have pastrami sandwiches.”

The truth is Bloomberg and his cronies are NOT anti-gun. They love guns, military hardware, SWAT teams, armored vehicles, attack helicopters equipped with Forward looking infrared cameras, etc.   Bloomberg loves guns as long as the gun is in his hands.  Bloomberg loves guns when those guns are protecting him and his family.  Bloomberg loves guns when they are used to keep the people in line. 

One of Bloomberg's biggest idols is the Chinese Dictator and twentieth century Mass murder Mao Zedong.  It was Mao who said 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'

Bloomberg loves guns it's Freedom he hates, NOT his freedom, YOUR Freedom.   Bloomberg doesn't like YOU, the American citizens having guns. Bloomberg hates guns because it gives the American people a means of redress against his totalitarian edicts.  

In his three terms, Dictator Bloomberg waged war on salt and soda, banned smoking in parks and pushed breast-feeding by having hospitals hide the formula.   Bloomberg also dictated that including flu shots for children mandatory. Bloomberg also dictated who can use a tanning bed. Bloomberg also outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content. So, better for the homeless to starve then be fed.  Isn't it nice that Dictator Bloomberg is so concerned with the well being of his slaves.

A Cashlees Society is a War on Freedom

The War on FREEDOM is taking a expected turn.  The true power of the banking cartels is their ABSOLUTE control of the money supply.  They use this control over a nation states money supply to control every faucet of modern life.  Now, that the banking cartels are running out of other peoples money they now want to come after your money.  central bankers, who control governments, want to implement negative interest rates. This means the depositor not only does not receive interest on his deposit, but pays the bank to hold the money. This is quietly occurring now at major banks in the United States and Europe as we speak.

Most Americans falsely believe  that their hard earned money is their OWN money. Nothing could be further from the truth.  The American dollars is a financial instrument owned by the Federal Reserve bank for all debts public and private.   The American dollar, which is NOT an American dollar, but a currency note used by the American Federal government at the behest of the Federal Reserve bank.  The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT an American banking institution. The Federal Reserve Bank  is a collection of private banking interests whose chief share holder is the Queen of England. 

So, for anyone who is listening...the American won the shooting match of the Revolutionary War but lost the war to English banking institutions.  After all, guess who financed the American colonists?  it was the United States of America had to rely on European loans to maintain the war effort; France, Spain and the Netherlands lent the United States over $10 million during the war. Which today would be worth $175,438,596.49 in 2015.

Not wanting to lose their iron grip on the citizens they rule over virtually every major country and or central bank in the world has begun instituting restrictions on the use or ownership of cash.  After all, at this present time the banking cartel do not yet have total domination of the worlds citizens.  There is still power in the hand so the people because the people, if they ever got organized, could bring down the big banking cartels by withdrawing all their cash from their banks in a very short period of time. this is known as making a run on the banks.  


When the big banks, the ones supposedly to big to fail begin to rob their customers with negative interests rates they big banking cartels can not have the possibility of people pulling their cash out of the banks thus robbing the big banks of their power.  By removing cash from the equation the banking cartels will have ABSOLUTE power over all Americans.

With NO CASH...the American people will have a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.  If those in power want to crush any American all they have to do is zero out their bank account.  With NO CASH the banking cartels will have unstoppable means of crushing any opposition.  If the big banks wish to take money out of your checking or savings account there will be no way to stop them.  If Any American gets out of line or starts causing problems the big banks simply deny that person or political group the means to pay their bills, to eat, to simply live.  

 Once cash is gone the banks will rule over every aspect of Americans lives.  Once every transaction is recorded, once every thing you do will be laid out on a balance sheet.  If say some idiot like Bloomberg decides that Americans should not longer drink soft drinks all the banks have to do is deny Americans the financial means to purchase soft drinks.  So, you go through the check out line and your card pays for everything but the soft drink.  With NO CASH you will have no means of paying for a soft drink except your bank debt card.  

Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights will be meaningless in a cashless society.  The banks will become the defacto political ruling party.  Elections will be meaningless because the banks will rule with impunity. 

What good is the 2nd Amendment if you can't buy parts or ammunition?   A cashless society would be life in Communists Russia, everything would be at the pleasure of the banking cartels. The world is ALREADY enslaved by the banking cartels.  American politicians already dance to the tune of the Federal Reserve.  In a cashless society all bets would be off, FREEDOM would be the first casualty of a cashless society.                                     

  
The Banking Cartels are already trying to brain wash the public that cash is bad, it’s dirty, it is used by criminals. In France the police going through trains in France and confiscating cash from people traveling through the country that exceeds the limit set by the French government.

The same exact thing happens everyday on the highways and byways of Americas. Daily, local, State, and federal police seize cash from travelers driving across the American highways. One of the primary ways police departments are able to seize money and share in the proceeds at the federal level is through a long-standing Justice Department civil asset forfeiture program known as Equitable Sharing. Asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful law enforcement tool that allows the government to take cash and property without pressing criminal charges and then requires the owners to prove their possessions were legally acquired.  Basically, what is happening is that the American government and the banking cartels are punishing Americans for using cash.  

“France passed another new Draconian law; from the summer of 2015, it will now impose cash requirements dramatically trying to eliminate cash by force. French citizens and tourists will only be allowed a limited amount of physical money. 

  
Have no doubt, the Banking Cartels will soon institute sweeping negative interest rates. This will ONLY happen after they have hoodwinked the American politicians that cash is bad for Democracy.   Digital money will give the Federal government total access to All of the American citizens earnings and savings.  Any and all of your financial transactions will be laid bare for all prying eyes to see.  A cashless society will be the ultimate totalitarian control mechanism.
 
This currently covert agenda is in full swing globally, creeping from one nation to the next.   The most recent victim is Israel, which has established a committee to turn their nation into an entirely cashless society.  A committee chaired by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff has come up with a three phase plan to “all but do away with cash transactions in Israel”

Hillary Clinton's Wallstreet Payoffs

The 2nd Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom

 
 Why does America need a 2nd Amendment?  

Never in human history has civilian  populations suffered under the brutal fists of despotic governments more than the 20th century. Without fail, the first act of these despots when they seize control is to disarm their intended victims. Governments have slaughtered more civillians than all of the wars combined. 

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is vital to the health and well being of the body politic.

When the Tyrant has accomplished his goal of disarming the populace the central government attains a monopoly of arms.  At this point there are no checks or balances on the powers of the government.  

Once, disarmed, the people no longer have a means of redress.   

Secondly, with no means to resist the state's edicts the people become defacto slaves of the state.

Thirdly, once the will of the people is nullified, then the stultification of the populace sets in and the state begins to stagnate.  Cuba and North Korea are both stark examples of this eventuality. 

 

The albatross of tyranny chokes the people and by extension the state. All tyrants throughout history including present day must continually make certian that the people have no means of resistance.  This becomes a vicious cycle of fear, slaughter and paranoia all of which hastens the decay of the state. 

The entire purpose of the the states existence become the continuation of the Tyrants rule.  Look at the stagnation of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the slow financial growth of China under Mao.  The entire collapse of the economy under Fidel Castro.    

Freedom does not just benefit the people it breathes life into the populace who believe that they have a personal stake in the states prosperity.  The American dream drives the people of America to work harder, push themselves further then any depot's threats could ever hope to achieve.  It is the belief that in a free society any man or woman has the potential to rise as high as they desire if they just apply themselves.  This is the secret to America's success, it is the reason why America has achieved such great prosperity in such a short time.  


If the American colonists have not been well armed they would never have had their revolution. Since colonial time Americans have understood this, that a free nation is a function of an armed populous, and the founders reflected these realities in four places in the US constitution, the most famous being the Second Amendment. This amendment states 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.  

When you disarm the population you take not only there means of defense from them you steal the life blood of Democracy from them, Freedom . Without Freedom the state becomes stunted and will eventually wither and die. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 points to that fact rather dramatically.  At one time it was the most powerful nation on earth, yet as time went on the people bereft of any reason to rise and exceed their grasp, became drones who only did what they were forced to do to survive. This spiritual decay led to apathy which ate away at the Soviet Union from within.  In the end the nation state founded on a tyrant withered and died because it lacked a vital resource, FREEDOM.  

 

Unfortunately the mainstream media influenced by anti-constitutional interests rarely mentions any of this, nor do they ask the obvious question: If the Second Amendment says that US supposed to be a free State why is it that the country is  hurtling head long towards a police State? 

Let Freedom Ring Forth

In the land of the free and the home of the brave, during the month of January, the American people, using their GOD given 2nd Amendment rights broke all previous January firearms sales records.

The FBI conducted more gun-related background checks this January than in any other January since the Federal gun registration system was created. 

With 2,545,802 checks processed through the National Instant Background Check System, January 2016 beat the previous record, set in January 2013, by 50,326 checks. 

Though January’s number represents a drop from the all-time single month record set in December 2015, it is also marks the ninth month in a row that has set a record. It is also the third month in a row with more than two million background checks.

 

The American people understand that freedom is a personal responsibility.  Safety and security are NOT the domain of the government nor the police.  It is the duty of each American to protect their own family and property. 

It is heartening to see that Americans by and large understand the fact that the current administration in Washington does not have their best interests in mind. 

 

Freedom is not Free, it is the most expensive of all American ideals.  It can only be paid for with rivers of blood, gallons of sweat, and copious amounts of tears.   When, politicians surreptitiously infringe on inalienable rights it is ALWAYS Freedom which they go seeking and creeping to exterminate in the middle of the night.   They despise FREEDOM because it is the antithesis of Fear, which is the politicians chief means of controlling the people.  

Fearful people will fall for anything Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the boogey man, the tooth fairy, etc.    Free men are not so easily swayed by imaginary threats.  Which, is why the politician must lie, cheat and steal all in the name of protecting the children. It's always the children the politicians promise to protect, but NEVER do.  The only thing politicians want to protect is their power and that at ANY costs.  

No matter how many people have to die, no matter how many lives must be shattered it is always about power and control.  Politicians care only for themselves.