« November 2011 | Main | January 2012 »

Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress openly criticizing their institutional bias- "Bring 'em on!"

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject:
Private Attorney General Confronts Racists in CONgress
-- "Bring 'em on!" he openly criticizes their institutional bias.


The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was correct,
not because it upheld apartheid, when the writing was already on the wall
and Abraham Lincoln refused to read that writing!

That was not Lincoln's finest hour -- hardly!

It was correct because that decision identified the organic Constitution
as the real culprit, and because it also explained sufficiently and thoroughly that
THE PROBLEM thus identified was in the organic Constitution and
the Supreme Court had no authority to amend that Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court still has no such authority.  See Article V:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5
(that Article has never been amended either!)


Nevertheless, rather than heed the Supreme Court's sage advice
at that time -- to amend the Constitution properly -- CONgress instead
created a second INFERIOR class of "federal citizens" specifically
to give blacks a terrible choice:  either become SUBJECTS of D.C.
or go back to Africa, even though many blacks at that time had been
born in America:

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm

Not only was the 1866 Civil Rights Act a terrible insult to all black Americans;
it fails the Void for Vagueness test because "United States" has three (3) --
COUNT THEM -- three different legal meanings.  Which of those 3 meanings
the CONgress intended when it designated them "citizens of the United States"
was allowed to remain entirely vague, until recent research blew the
cover off this multi-generational fraud:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

To make matters much worse, federal citizens are now the
ONLY CLASS of Americans who can vote or serve on juries of any kind,
be they Federal or State juries, be they grand juries or trial juries,
be they civil juries or criminal juries.

If you are a State Citizen -- read Citizen of ONE OF the States united --
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/swornaff.htm#delaguerra
you are eligible to serve in the House, Senate and White House, BUT
you are expressly and totally EXCLUDED from participating otherwise
in the American democratic experiment.

So much for "Democracy in America" -- one of THE BIGGEST LIES if there ever was one.


Here's an IQ test which our office has devised for all Federal lawmakers:
ask them this:  What are the first three letters of "CONgress"?

Con  verb  to swindle (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, paperback edition)

As Mark Twain once wrote:  "The only time the children are safe
is when CONgress is not in session."
  (Not his "real" name, by the way :)


Bring 'em on, I say:  their knowledge of American history and
American laws never repealed is so empty, so vacuous,
my little finger can push over their entire "white collar" crime syndicate
in one brief wink.


p.s.  Guess what "U.S. Individual" means on IRS Form 1040?
Answer:  that term includes ONLY federal citizens and resident aliens:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/hicks/memo04.htm  (Meaning of “United States person”)


HOW ABOUT THEM APPLES?



--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Ron Paul for President 2012

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Ron Paul for President
By Dave Nalle - December 30, 2011 at 3:02 PM
Filed under Elections , Presidential , Ron Paul
After polling all of our state chapters and receiving their votes determined from the preferences of their members, on Wednesday the Republican Liberty Caucus national board held a special meeting at which we certified the decision of our members to endorse Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). The following press release was sent to national media in coordination with the Ron Paul campaign and we hope that our input will give Paul a little extra push going into the Iowa primary.
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 30, 2011
CONTACT: Dave Nalle at 512-656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org
Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Ron Paul for President
Paul Nomination Will Send a Message from the Grassroots that the GOP is Back on Track with its Founding Principles!
AUSTIN, TX – The Republican Liberty Caucus national board is proud to endorse Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination.  In a field of candidates who show little genuine commitment to individual liberty or reducing the size of government, Rep. Paul stands out as a consistent champion of the values of the Republican Liberty Caucus; limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise.
“Ron Paul has been the one Congressman willing to consistently stand up against abuses of government power and for protecting the rights of citizens,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. “He has led opposition to the War on Drugs, REAL ID and the PATRIOT Act.  Just in the past year he has joined us in fighting against unconstitutional military detention of civilians, government tracking of workers through e-verify and a federal takeover of the internet.  These are issues which grassroots Republicans are concerned about, but the party establishment is not listening.  Ron Paul is the only candidate who really speaks for the grassroots of the Republican Party.”
“Paul has often been a lone vote against big government and big spending in the wilderness of the House of Representatives, but as president that lone vote would become a veto and stop government abuses dead in their tracks,” observed Earl Bandy, Chairman of the RLC of Colorado. “That alone is a great reason to put Ron Paul in the White House and give him that power.”
A major goal of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to expand the number of Senators and Representatives who are truly dedicated to the principles of small government, free enterprise and individual liberty.  We made a good start towards changing Congress in 2010 and with Ron Paul at the head of the Republican ticket and a great field of liberty candidates we can win even more seats in Congress in 2012.
With leaders like Ron Paul this is the year when we can bring our government back to the values of the founders and put the liberty and prosperity of our citizens at the top of the national agenda rather than the bottom.

Founded in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus exists to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party. To find out more, please visit www.rlc.org.  This endorsement decision was the result of a vote of RLC state chapters nationwide and certified by the national board.  This is the first time the RLC has endorsed a presidential candidate since 1996.



December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Doug Wead on Response to Negative Attacks at Dr. Ron Paul

http://runronpaul.com/interviews/doug-wead-there-is-nothing-dangerous-about-the-constitution/

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Why Liberals Should Consider Ron Paul

The President of the United States of America should be beholden to no man, woman, or entity. Do you believe that a presidential nominee who can raise 1 billion dollars, with a "B," is beholden to nobody? Neither do I.

President Obama came into power promising sweeping changes to how America does business. America was going re-emerge as a bastion for fair and transparent government. President Obama was going to clean up the messes and debacles created by the George W. Bush administration. The new, young, educated, intellectual leader of the free world was going to mend fences with our partners in the Middle East and the Muslim world, while becoming a friend to emerging superpowers like Turkey and China. He was going to open doors of dialogue with our vocal adversaries in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, and support the rise of democracy in the oppressed areas of the world thirsting for their own democratic revolutions.

He was going to create a more equal tax structure, bring much-needed regulation and scrutiny to the financial markets, close Guantanamo Bay, start a troop withdrawal in Iraq, and finally bring an end to the war in Afghanistan.

Three years after his election, we have less transparency in our financial markets, continuation of an unfair tax structure, depleting relations with many of our Middle east and Muslim allies, a blind eye to the atrocious actions of our oppressive allied governments of the Bahrain, Yemen, and Egypt, a massive cloud of secrecy in Guantanamo Bay, an increase of troop levels in Afghanistan, an escalation of rhetoric with Iran, and Iraqis having to beg the US to end its occupation. Does this sound like the administration of a liberal, espousing "change we can believe in"?

Obama apologists will bring up the president's successes, such as the end of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the passing of the Affordable Health Care Act, and the end to the Iraq war. But those same liberals, either publicly or privately, believe the president didn't go far enough in pushing a public option in health care, didn't push for a complete withdraw American forces from Iraq, and are embarrassed by the fact that Mr. Obama's views on equality for same sex couples are still "evolving." This same president additionally extended the Bush tax cuts as a compromise to end 'Don't ask, Don't tell' that clearly favored the GOP. Is that who devout liberals voted for? Change when it's negotiable or popular?

President Obama has been a failure to many Democrats, especially the liberal wing of the party, and all they can say to one another is "at least he's not the GOP candidate." But what if the GOP candidate was Ron Paul? Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has served over 30 years in the House of Representatives.

Yes, you read that correctly, a Republican from Texas. Congressman Paul is one of the most ideological members in the history of Congress. His vote is nearly never based on monetary donation or party affiliation. Like him or not, the man is a true individual. In fact many of Mr. Paul's ideas would be considered too liberal by most mainstream Democrat standards.

Though Mr. Paul is an old name in Beltway politics, he brings something completely new and refreshing to presidential politics: his unabridged and steadfast honesty. Ron Paul has not wavered in his voting or policy ideals, regardless of how unpopular his opinions can be. Congressman Paul wants to get rid of many federal agencies, including the Department of Education and the EPA, and would like to audit and perhaps abolish the Federal Reserve Bank. In that same breath, Mr. Paul advocated an end to the death penalty, the legalization of all drugs, the removal of American troops from across the globe, and voted against the Patriot Act. Not exactly your father's brand of Republican.

Congressman Paul's positions are not "evolving" like President Obama. Mr. Paul's opinions are simply that: his own. Congressman Paul's beliefs have made him a "fringe" candidate by most media standards, even though he's polling in the top three among all GOP candidates in most states. His no-nonsense attitude and approach along with his unwavering and steadfast principles have helped him as much as they have hurt him as a GOP candidate. But imagine a world where Ron Paul was president; a promise to remove American troops from most of the world, the closing of Guantanamo Bay, the legalization of drugs, an audit of the Federal Reserve, and the end of the death penalty. Now I know all these views may be a bit extreme, and I haven't even mentioned his strong conservative beliefs such as his strong anti-immigration approach, unequivocal disdain for abortion rights, pledge to never raise taxes, and his criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The most practical reason for liberals to vote for Ron Paul is that it would move the goal posts of discussions to a more liberal platform. Without a Democratic primary, Mr. Obama has had no reason to reach out to liberal supporters he has taken for granted. But with the "occupy" movement focusing on campaign fundraising events for Republicans and Democrats alike, President Obama's become susceptible to the same attacks as his GOP contemporaries, except for Mr. Paul. Unlike all of the cookie cutter candidates in both parties, Mr. Paul strays from party lines on many critical issues, including issues that deep pocket contributor's support. On December 15th, at a GOP debate in Iowa where Mr. Paul is surging, he doubled down on his position against military action in Iran, and has been the only candidate to question our unquestioned support of Israel under any circumstance. Even with a surging campaign in Iowa, Mr. Paul refused to pander to the status quo GOP position against Iran and Israel, a stand many believe could derail his chances of winning Iowa, but he did it anyways and with sincerity.

If Mr. Paul was a legitimate candidate in a general election, we could finally have an honest debate about campaign finance reform, military spending, torture of enemy combatants, immigration, the Federal Reserve, free trade agreements, gay marriage, and prison sentences for drug use. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of themes that are glazed over with gimmick answers and worthless slogans in normal presidential debates. With a candidate willing to stick to his convictions regardless of popularity, we can finally have an honest discussion, one that would finally make President Obama show his true colors, as either a leader with conviction, or as one that plays to the masses.

Now let me be clear, I don't expect the average liberal to support most of Congressman Paul's positions, particularly his stance on abortion, the closing of multiple government departments and agencies, and his stance on taxes. However, this is a matter of trust. I ask you, do you trust Ron Paul's positions to be his own and to be unwavering, even in the face of massive campaign contributions and polling that suggests lack of support? This country needs a leader that is beholden to nobody and who isn't afraid to lose the presidency because of his principles. I know that Mr. Paul falls into that category. Now it's time to see if President Obama is capable of the same.

Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yousef-abukhdair/ron-paul-liberal-voters_b_1177636.html

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

AIT / HBOT therapists (legendary from MiracleMountain) travelling country continuing to help children

AIT is very important therapy

Posted by: "Robert" rhartsoe@skybest.com   roberthartsoe

Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:07 pm (PDT)



Judy and I will be traveling across the South this winter in our motor home and we have decided to provide AIT, Auditory Integration Training to children who may not be able to get it otherwise. We have closed Miracle Mountain in NC and retired. At MM we provided over 22,000 HBOT and other therapies to children from 19 countries and we did it regardless of their ability to pay. We miss working with children and adults of special needs. We are taking our AIT equipment and experience on the road with us. We will only accept a limited number of clients because we still want to enjoy our retirement and see the areas we go to. And we only want to spend about 2 weeks in any area. But this will still allow us to enjoy working with children as we have done for the last 11 years.

If you would like to learn more about Auditory Integration Training and how it may help you, there is a great video you can watch on the AIT Institute website at http://www.aitinstitute.org/Video_Player/videos.htm

This can be a very valuable service to your child. If you are broke and cannot afford it, contact us anyway. If we have an extra spot, we will treat your child at no charge. Otherwise our charges will be less than half price, just enough to pay our fuel and campground costs. We will have a very limited number of spaces so please understand if we are full.

We will start in Orlando on Jan. 9 and we continue on to Ft. Lauderdale area if we are needed there. In Feb. we hope to be in Houston and Dallas and any other areas where the demand is strong enough. I hope you don't consider this spam because we are providing a valuable service on a very limited basis to children who would otherwise not be able to afford it.
Our website is http://www.aitontheroad.com/

I had posted on a couple of groups before but my computer crashed and I lost all the replies and emails about AIT. So if you answered before, you may want to resend your request. Thanks

Robert & Judy Hartsoe
formerly Miracle Mountain in NC
11 grandchildren, including Garrett with CP who got us into this mess. ;-)
http://www.aitontheroad.com/

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Twin NASA Probes Set for New Year's Moon Rendezvous

http://www.space.com/14095-nasa-gravity-probes-moon-grail-newyears.html

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Private Attorney General writes to Cliff Kincaid re: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
To: cliff.kincaid@aim.org
 Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 8:16 AM
Subject: Private Attorney General writes to Cliff Kincaid re: Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff580.htm


Greetings Cliff:

I invite you to view a few recent films, in order to put this controversy
into what I believe is its proper historical and factual context:

(1)  "The Green Zone" starring Matt Damon:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0947810/


(2)  "The New American Century" in 10 Parts at YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U14cONsdsYQ



"The Green Zone" was particularly helpful to me, for several reasons --
arguably the most important of which is that it appears to be historically
accurate on the paramount question it addressed:  Did Iraq have WMD?

An official report by the USAF Counterproliferation Center at Maxwell AFB
two YEARS to the month before 9/11/2001, confirmed that Niger's "yellow cake"
(uranium oxide) had been conveyed to Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona,
NOT to Iraq:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.2.htm


[begin quote]


After the 1967 war, France stopped supplies of uranium to Israel.  These supplies were from former French colonies of Gabon, Niger, and the Central Africa Republic.34  Israel had small amounts of uranium from Negev phosphate mines and had bought some from Argentina and South Africa, but not in the large quantities supplied by the French.  Through a complicated undercover operation, the Israelis obtained uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, held in a stockpile in Antwerp.  Using a West German front company and a high seas transfer from one ship to another in the Mediterranean, they obtained 200 tons of yellow cake.  The smugglers labeled the 560 sealed oil drums “Plumbat,” which means lead, hence “Operation Plumbat.”35  The West German government may have been involved directly but remained undercover to avoid antagonizing the Soviets or Arabs.36  Israeli intelligence information on the Nazi past of some West German officials may have provided the motivation.37

[end quote]


Moreover, the humanitarian crisis that already existed in Iraq, prior to the second
U.S. invasion of that country, had already been very well documented for
the whole world to see. 

Just read the Exhibits in this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION
and please take careful note of the publication dates of each such Exhibit:

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gwbush/vcc.htm

         (M)     “Beyond Torture:  U.S. Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq,”
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights

(N)     “Sanctions Against Iraq:  Costs of Failure,”
by Peter Boone, Haris Gazdar and Athar Hussain (November 1997)
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights

(O)     “The Human Costs of War in Iraq,”
A report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights

I am not one to relish body counts;  nevertheless, the human costs of Iraq's
multi-decade bloodbath have now easily exceeded 1.25 Million violent and
premature deaths of its People, NOT COUNTING the long-term health effects
predictable from depleted uranium ordnance widely used in both U.S. wars
of aggression against Iraq.

"Shock and Awe?"  Whose "shock" and whose "awe" please?


Now, please expand the scope above to include also every conflict
-- mentioned even slightly in "The New American Century" --
which involved any kind of "intervention" by the U.S. Military
in any other foreign country.

Who was it who first said that "Governments Kill People"?

Who is responsible for the greater moral and ethical outrages here?


Our answer:  The Government of the United States!


I have my own questions for Mr. Assange, which primarily concern
his biases in favor of the apartheid, racist and fascist government
now in control of the rogue State of Israel.

Regardless of the relevance or lack of relevance of his well documented biases,
I will never regard it as proper for Federal Prosecutors to commence criminal proceedings
when those very same Federal Prosecutors have unclean hands themselves.

If you have any doubts about my reasons for writing the preceding paragraph,
perhaps you might benefit from reading the reasons why my office has now
concluded that the U.S. District Courts have no criminal jurisdiction whatsoever:

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/court.conspiracy.exposed.htm


How many times have these very same Federal "Prosecutors" said that
ignorance of the Law is no excuse for violating the Law?



The People of this planet who presently hate the United States
do not feel that way because "they hate our freedoms" [sic];
they do so because they hate our manifold hypocrisies.


What I believe America has most to fear is a complete loss of all respect
for due process of Law and for the fundamental principles embodied
in the Fifth Amendment, namely:  that there shall be no deprivations of
life, liberty or property without that due process of Law, and that
a man is innocent until proven guilty as determined by a competent and qualified
jury of his peers
.


Against these long-standing principles of American jurisprudence,
the Peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan have now suffered and continue to
suffer SUMMARY EXECUTION at the hands of the U.S. Military.


We invite you to justify, and publish, your own answers to the key moral and ethical questions
discussed above.


Thank you.


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Newsmax, Michael Reagan's Ronald Reagan's Pick for 2012? Join Michael Reagan, Newsmax for Election Special

markadamsjdmba relays;

FYI - In case anyone didn't know that Newsmax and Michael Reagan are shills for the crooks in power, see below.

 


From: alert@partnerorganizations.com
To: markadamsjdmba@hotmail.com
Subject: Ronald Reagan's Pick for 2012? Join Michael Reagan, Newsmax for Election Special
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:53:24 -0600

Urgent 2012 Election Message

Join Michael Reagan, Newt Gingrich for the Newsmax Special 2012 Broadcast

Dear Reader,
The Iowa Caucuses are just days away and the New Hampshire primary soon after!
Newsmax, the nation's leading conservative online news source, is offering an exclusive online broadcast The Newsmax Election 2012 Special with Michael Reagan.
Michael Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a great conservative, reveals why continuing the Reagan legacy is critically important - and why President Obama must be stopped.
Michael also reveals why he and Newsmax believe former House Speaker Newt Gingrich can and will continue that important legacy.
In this special online broadcast, Michael shares some surprising information about the 2012 race.
And Newt explains his plan for less government, dramatic tax cuts, a strong national defense and traditional values - all of which have made America great.
You can watch this exclusive Newsmax broadcast with Mike Reagan and Newt by Going Here Now.
Thank you,
Christopher Ruddy
Editor
Newsmax.com
P.S. Who is the candidate you believe can continue the Reagan legacy? Newsmax wants to know. Vote in our urgent online election poll by Going Here Now



Click here to be removed from this opt-in list or send a written request to:
Partner Organizations
PO Box 9374
Chesapeake, VA 23321.

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Our Next 1776

Dear Juan,

The bayonets are sharpened.  The muskets are loaded.

Today, 2011 comes to an end.  With your help, Ron Paul is going to make 2012 America's next 1776.

If you haven't yet done so, please make your most generous contribution to help our campaign reach the additional $2 million we need before the end of the fourth quarter fundraising period at midnight.

And every dollar we raise today puts our R3VOLUTION one step closer to VICTORY.

Juan, the truth is, this isn't just any campaign.  It's a R3VOLUTION.  And Ron Paul isn't just any candidate.

He's a man of his word - not a flip-flopper.

He's spent over 30 years fighting for constitutional principles - not betraying them.

He's fought against EVERY outrageous scheme the establishment has cooked up - from the $700 BILLION TARP bailout to the individual mandate central to ObamaCare.

And he's the ONLY candidate to offer a real plan to cut spending.

Click to donate

Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America cuts $1 TRILLION in the first year of his presidency - by eliminating five unconstitutional federal agencies - and it balances the budget by year three.

That's what has the establishment scared.  That's why the SMEARS are coming. 

Well, guess what?

Ron Paul has taken their best shots.  And he's still standing and FIGHTING BACK.

Now, the Iowa Caucus is in three days.  The New Hampshire Primary is in ten.

Then South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada.

Ron Paul announced his candidacy just over seven months ago. 

We've been preparing for this moment ever since.

It's here.  We're ready.  Ron Paul is ready.

Help us march toward victory with your most generous contribution IMMEDIATELY.

For Liberty,

John Tate
Campaign Manager

P.S.  Let's make 2012 America's next 1776.

Please help us raise the additional $2 million we need before the end of the fourth quarter fundraising period tonight.

Help us march toward victory with your most generous contribution IMMEDIATELY.

Click to donate

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink

"Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011)

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
 Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: thedailybell.com : "Ron Paul Has Already Won," by Staff Report (12/30/2011)

http://www.thedailybell.com/3417/Ron-Paul-Has-Already-Won

Ron Paul Has Already Won

Friday, December 30, 2011 – by Staff Report



What happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa? ... Paul seems to have a natural ceiling among GOP voters: A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him. Indeed, the primary reason Paul has an opening to win in Iowa is that no consensus candidate has emerged among social conservatives, which dominate the GOP electorate here  a situation that allows Paul to potentially win with less than 30 percent of the vote. Still, a Paul win in Iowa would have significant ramifications. It would go a long way toward pushing his Libertarian views, long dismissed as outside of Republican mainstream, to the center of the conversation. The resultant media coverage would allow Paul to further spread his message – and potentially win a host of new supporters. And if Paul can do well in New Hampshire on January 10, where he is currently tied for second place with Gingrich, Paul could even move to shared front-runner status with Romney, who is now ahead by more than 20 points in New Hampshire. – CBSNews

Dominant Social Theme: Paul is a crank and will never light up the sky.
Free-Market Analysis: The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode. US GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul shows us the accuracy of this statement. Ron Paul and his libertarian allies are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans by the millions. In fact, they have already won. More on this below.
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that a substantial minority, if not a majority, of Republicans and Democrats are really libertarians of some sort. This gives Ron Paul a natural constituency that is far larger than the mainstream media admits.
There is apparently only one struggle in the world – and in the US. That is the seeming struggle between a handful of ancient, elite families who control hundreds of trillions via central banks around the world and want to move to world government (dominated by them) and the rest of us.
This Anglosphere power elite has used its unimaginable money base to seemingly pervert the workings of the entire world. It apparently uses dominant social themes – fear-based promotions disseminated by its bought-and-paid-for media, think tanks, universities and governments – to frighten middle classes into giving up wealth and power to cleverly crafted globalist institutions. This is the internationalist government-in-waiting.
But a funny thing happened on the way to world government. The Internet. About a decade ago, we began to focus on the idea that the Internet was a modern-day Gutenberg Press and would have a similar impact.
The Gutenberg Press basically spawned the Renaissance, Reformation and contributed to counter-Reformation trends such as the Age of Enlightenment that was spawned by the elites themselves in an effort to counteract the power of the Gutenberg Press. The Age of Enlightenment postulated that man was perfectible and the agency of perfection was government.
Government is an absolute necessity for power elites. With the advent of the Gutenberg Press, however, something changed. The great families of Europe found it advisable to promote the fallacious idea of "democracy." This idea, that people would "have a say" in their governments, allowed the power elite then and now to withdraw from the public scene and dominate from behind the scenes. This domination is called "mercantilism."
Just as it is imperative these days for the power elite not to reveal itself, so it is imperative that the elites continue to have access to all levels of government in order to pass the laws necessary to its survival. Without the faux-system of civil society that the elites have erected in the past 150 years, there would be no prospect of a one-world order.
No one wakes up in the morning and decides to spend one's life building global government. It is an entirely false paradigm that this happens. People are coerced into believing that global government is inevitable and that their self-interest is better fulfilled by working with the powers-that-be than against them. This sense of INEVITABILITY is part of what drives the push toward the New World Order.
But it has long been our contention that those who predict the inevitability of the coming one-world order may not be entirely correct. It continues to be our contention – as we follow modern events – that the elites seeking global governance have been considerably set back by the Internet, as we have long predicted.
We know this to be true by the amount of violence the elite central banking families are turning to. Violence, insane legislative initiatives like SOPA, the erection of prison camps and the fomentation of wars around the world are all signs of the fear that has overtaken these elites. They do not want to be found out.
One needs only to study a little history to begin to understand the relevance of the paradigm we are suggesting. After the Gutenberg Press began to expose the power elite of the day and its manipulations, the first copyright laws were passed, the "isms" were suddenly developed, the Hegelian Dialectic was brought into play significantly and wars broke out throughout the West and lasted for decades.
There IS likely a playbook. There are surely manipulations that the elites pursue over and over in their loony quest for world government. One sees them put into play after the advent of the Gutenberg Press just as they are being put into play today. This is not an easy idea to accept, however, even for the alternative Internet Press. It is much easier and more psychologically satisfying to speak of ancient cabals, such as Jewish/Zionist penetration via vast Illuminati-Masonic plots.
But the truth TODAY is simpler than that, in our view. The world is being run by an intergenerational mafia of familial elites that USE religion and symbolism to affright people and impress on everyone the inevitability of what it is to come.
This is the reason, for instance, that Muammar Gaddafi's execution was shown over and over for weeks. This was the reason his purported buggery was made available throughout the world though ordinarily the Western mainstream media is averse even to showing so much as a kiss to a general audience that includes children.
Gaddafi's death was a warning. Just as the wars in Africa and the Middle East are cautionary ones. They have little or nothing to do with oil or the "great game" or other resources. When the Pentagon wanted to make a case for staying in Afghanistan it suddenly discovered a trillion-dollars'-worth of rare-earth minerals and other commodities. It is all so transparent.
The powers-that-be seek control. The stiff-necked Pashtuns and tricky Punjabis that are now 300 million strong and have dominated the navel of the earth for millennia must be conquered and pacified. This is the struggle taking place today.
And yet, we have predicted the Anglosphere may already have lost this war for global domination. The hidden influence of Money Power in our view peaked in the 20th century. The 21st century has offered them one disaster after another.
9/11 itself is still a questionable event. Attempts to impose the phony meme of global warming are also not going well. The war on terror is increasingly met by disbelief. Scarcity memes of all types have less power to upset, and are increasingly exposed on the Internet.
And then there is Ron Paul. Four years ago, libertarian politician Ron Paul was regarded by the mainstream media as a harmless, crazy crank. Today, according to a CBS article (see excerpt above), the only thing standing between Ron Paul and a sociopolitical consensus around his libertarian points of view is the view by many that he will "undermine" national security. Or so we are told.
But this meme, too, shall have its day – and be gone. That's because the Internet is a process not an episode. The damage control that the elites practices in the 20th century doesn't work anymore. They have turned to a more ancient playbook, in our view, but history shows THAT is not so effective, either.
People naturally lose perspective. But back in the 1990s a trio helped change the world. Dr. Ron Paul and economist Murray Rothbard were close friends. Lew Rockwell was the organizer and raised the money. Rothbard wrote prodigiously and Ron Paul kept delivering babies and running for office. Ron Paul is the most famous and successful libertarian politician of the past 100 years.
This trio built on what is good in what we today call civil society and eventually, as the Internet era began, were joined by popularizers like Matt Drudge, Alex Jones ... and then more. And so once again the ideas of freedom and individual HUMAN action (versus Adam Smith's Wealth of NATIONS) were propagated as they had been before. No one is perfect, but this aspiration is larger than personal agendas, and grounded in the logic of civil society built up over centuries by the greatest and most courageous of minds.
This is the story of civilization, in fact. It is a language and a conversation. It reoccurs. It cannot be extinguished because it may blaze anew in the hearts of the next generation. Sure, it may take a village, but it is one made up of INDIVIDUALS. And everyone is welcome. All who subscribe to the individual greatness of the human species are conveyances for what is worth carrying forward in human society. God damn those who do not. 
History seems to us a series of cycles, struggles between historical elites and the rest. Such a struggle has been joined today. This is REAL history. We are lucky enough to live at a time when the old order is passing. Maybe what we are seeing is its death struggles.
The Internet is making it impossible for it to thrive in its current form. Central banks printing monopoly money-from-nothing, wars of aggression, the incarceration of millions ... these are indefensible paradigms when one does not fully control the media anymore. 
The Internet Reformation is like a wildfire, perhaps. It seems to be burning away the manifestations of the American Empire by incinerating the disingenuous moral buttresses that hold together this phony construct of the modern power elite. By the time the Internet Reformation has run its course, today's authoritarian verities may have perished entirely. (They will of course emerge in another form.)
Right now, according to this CBS article, only the lie that the military-industrial complex "keeps America safe" stands between the fullness of Leviathan and its subsidence. But what happens, as will be inevitable, when Americans in larger numbers find out that this "safety" is non-existent?
What happens when Americans finally realize that the string of wars that have "defended" them were perhaps phony? What happens when the seeming manipulations that caused the phony Cold War fully penetrate popular consciousness? What happens when the truth about 9/11 – whatever it is – is finally revealed?
The last memes of the power elite that will tumble (as we have long predicted) are the fundaments of the state itself: the insanity of the current model of state justice (where the state itself and its controllers make the laws and then pay for the legislatures, courts and military and civilian police and penitentiary guards that enforce this phony "justice.")
The corollary is the military-industrial complex itself and its myriad millions of intel operatives in London, Washington, DC and Tel Aviv. These individuals are already worried; their privacy invasions, incarcerations and tortures weigh heavily on them. It is occurring to them that they may be on the wrong side of history – real history.
George W. Bush is afraid to travel outside of the United States. David Rockefeller is approaching the century mark and is not his old persuasive self. The Rothschilds are regularly making appearances on business television to show they are merely struggling businessmen and bankers. The US Congress attempts to pass evermore Draconian laws to stop the Internet Reformation. Wars are fomented to take over the world. And yet the navel of the world remains unconquered.
Conclusion: The Internet, which was never supposed to happen, continues to inform people every day about the despicable nature of the elite's 20th century directed history. The old paradigms are crumbling. A thousand, ten thousand, a million prison camps may not capture the truths echoing around the world. The Internet is a process not an episode.

December 31, 2011 in Current Affairs | Permalink