Posts Tagged ‘liberty’
Declaration of Independence 2011
Friday, July 15th, 2011Sign your name to Liberty Counsel’s Declaration of Independence 2011. We intend to hand deliver a full-color copy of this remarkable document to every member of Congress, selected members of the Obama Administration, and anywhere else it can have an impact! Now just imagine how much more impact this will have when we inform the recipients that hundreds of thousands of Americans have endorsed its contents!
Related Posts:
First Amendment Rights Denied by Courts
Wednesday, December 8th, 2010Bob Schulz
We The People Foundation
On Monday November 29 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following orders:
Case 10-446
KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA,
PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Case 10-560
SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Both cases were controversies involving subject matter critical to the primary governmental functions and intent of law set forth in the Constitution for the United States.
Kerchner was defending his individual Right to a President that is a natural born citizen.
Schulz was defending his individual Right to a government that does not give or lend public funds to private corporations for definitively private purposes (i.e., the $700 billion AIG and TARP financial bailouts), a power not inherent in the People, much less transferable or granted by the People to the Government.
The Judicial Article III of the Constitution guarantees Kerchner and Schulz that the merits of their cases would be heard by the independent, federal courts (“the judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution ..”).
 |
However, the lower courts violated Article III, summarily dismissing the cases for “lack of standing,” on the (erroneous) ground that because the injuries to Kerchner and Schulz were no different from the injuries suffered by the rest of the people in the country, neither Schulz nor Kerchner’s Petitions to cure constitutional torts could proceed. By dismissing the cases on “lack of standing”, the courts essentially suggest that Kerchner and Schulz should have directed their Grievances to Congress – as if the issues raised were political questions and America was a pure democracy with rights granted by the will of the majority, rather than a Republic with unalienable, individual, Natural Rights, guaranteed by written Constitutions, enforceable through an independent Judiciary.
Kerchner and Schulz had Petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overrule and reverse the “no standing” rulings of the lower courts and send the cases back to the lower courts for a hearing on the merits of the constitutional challenges. In denying both Petitions for Certiorari and avoiding a judicial examination of the merits for no other discernable reason than political eagerness, the Supreme Court added a ruthless sneer to the Grievances.
About all that can be said about the Kerchner and Schulz cases is we can add “presidential eligibility” and “corporate welfare” to the dung heap of other desecrations of our sacred Charters of Freedom, including but by no means limited to violations of the war, money, taxes, privacy, property, immigration, petition and sovereignty clauses — all of which have been the subject of repeated Petitions and court challenges that have been either ignored by government officials or tersely dismissed by abuses of one judicial doctrine or another.
Unfortunately, this leaves us – the People – with but one irrefutable conclusion: the Constitution is NOT now serving any meaningful purpose. The rule of law has been replaced by the rule of man and whim. The Constitution has become a mere menu of words, phrases and ideas which the government may choose to define or ignore at its sole will and discretion.
The way the system is working is in sharp contrast to the way it was designed to work. Ignoring Article V’s prescriptions for orderly change, our elected and appointed officials are now doing whatever they think best, literally unrestrained by either the written words of the Law itself or the intent behind those words – i.e., the set of principles, prohibitions and mandates proclaimed to govern them - the Constitution for the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Rather than three independent, co-equal branches of a highly-limited federal Government, each designed to be a check and balance on the other two, keeping them in their constitutional places, with the People possessing the ultimate Power, we now suffer the branches cooperating in decisions to deny the People their creator-endowed, unalienable Rights to life, Liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
Since 1995, People have been attempting to hold the Government accountable to the Constitution by exercising the little-known, unalienable Right guaranteed by the last ten words of the First Amendment, “.and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances”.
While this Right was placed in the First Amendment as the PRIMARY means through which the power of the People to directly hold the Government accountable could be exercised, peaceably, our modern-day existence of materialism and apathy, public largesse for votes, and routine usurpation of power by the Government, has left the “capstone Right” of the Bill of Rights dormant and all but forgotten. Ask any attorney to cite the five rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and most will not mention the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances.
We were first motivated by the knowledge that a departure from the Constitution in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, until the People are reduced to misery and suffering.
We knew, “The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” Thomas Jefferson. Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782.
We know that each violation of the Constitution has a ravaging effect on America, Her People, economy, reputation and security, and that the whole of the devastation would be greater than the sum of the parts.
We know that an act of tyranny anywhere is a threat to Freedom everywhere.
We repeatedly Petitioned the Government to remedy the following violations and abuses of the Constitution and the Rights of the People
1. the $ 20 billion bailout of Mexico in 1995 without approval by Congress; and
2. the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 after Congress refused to authorize it; and
3. the direct, un-apportioned tax on labor; and
4. the withholding of earnings from the paychecks of workers; and
5. the Federal Reserve System’s fiat, debt-based currency; and
6. the decision to invade Iraq by the President, rather than Congress; and
7. the USA Patriot Act; and
8. the federal gun control laws; and
9. the failure of Presidents to enforce the immigration laws; and
10. the movement toward a North American Union; and
11. the counting of votes in secret by machines; and
12. the eligibility to be President if both parents are not U.S. citizens; and
13. the $ 85 billion bailout of AIG; and
14. the $ 700 TARP bailout.
The result has always been the same: utter silence and failure to respond by every official in the Congress and Executive, and outright dismissal of any and all Petitions pursued through the Judiciary. However, under well established U.S. law, silence is admission, when a public official has a duty to respond and fails to do so.
The People further decided to test the attitude of the Judiciary specifically challenging the nature of the First Amendment Petition clause itself. On July 19, 2004, the People filed a lawsuit asking the federal Court to formally declare — for the first time in history — the Constitutional meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment. The title of this historic case (sponsored by the We The People Foundation) was, We The People v. United States.
The Court was asked to answer two fundamental questions: 1) whether the Government is obligated under the First Amendment to respond to Petitions for Redress of violations of the Constitution; and 2) whether the People possess the Right to retain their money until those Grievances are redressed.
Obviously, the correct answer to the first question is “yes” – the Government is obligated to respond. To speculate otherwise would be to call into question why the clause was even included as part of the First Amendment. It is noteworthy that the Petition clause is the only part of the Amendment which articulates a specific and direct form and process of communication from the People to the Government, thereby reiterating the potent principle from the Declaration of Independence that defines government as a servant of the People. Finally, in the words of the Supreme Court of 1803, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect….” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174.
The correct answer to the second question is also “yes” – the People must be able to enforce their Rights, or they essentially have none. The Right to withhold money as a peaceable means for the People to “weigh in” on and Redress unconstitutional governmental acts arises from the Founding Fathers and their sound reasoning as to how a Republic must operate to ensure the Rights of a Free People.
Indeed, the Right of Petition to secure Redress against government transgressors has evolved as the cornerstone of the law of Western Civilization finding its first written citation as part of Magna Carta in 1215 A.D.
On October 6, 2006 oral arguments were heard by the United States Court of Appeals regarding the nature of the Right to Petition.
Traditionally, Appeals Courts issue their decisions within 4-6 weeks following oral arguments. However, the decision in the Right to Petition lawsuit was issued more than seven months after oral arguments. Why the delay?
In hindsight, we now know activities were quietly taking place within the other two branches of the Government that appear to have directed the verdict in our case.
Rather than work in good faith with the People’s concerns by responding directly to our Petitions for Redress, the Government chose to “clamp down,” through a (constitutionally abhorrent) tripartite treaty – a tripartition, divided among the three branches, for the purpose of (unlawfully) colluding to deny the People their First Amendment Right to hold the government accountable to the Constitution. These actions were taken in a manner to attract the least attention possible.
First, in December, 2006, the 109th Congress passed the “Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.” (Summary, H.R. 6111) Please note the title. This Act was meant to retroactively extend tax credits that had expired in 2005: Sounds good for the People – but look again.
Tucked away in the Act was a provision (Title III — Health Savings Accounts, Section 407) (see full text) that authorized the (Executive Branch) Treasury Department to make law (i.e., unconstitutionally) to administratively prescribe a list of “specified frivolous positions,” and impose a penalty of $5,000 on any person who uses a “specified frivolous position” as a ground of reasoning for retaining his money from the Government. Disturbingly, there is no definition of “frivolous” in the Act.
Then, on March 15, 2007, the Treasury Department published Notice 2007-30, a list of “Frivolous Positions”, again, without defining “frivolous.” Included on the frivolous list – i.e., subject to a $5,000 penalty, among numerous other well-researched and proven positions, is Government’s refusal to respond to First Amendment Petitions for Redress of Grievances. (See paragraph (9)b of the Notice).
In other words, citizens who raise the issue of government’s failure to respond to First Amendment Petitions of Redress are subject to a $5,000 penalty.
In short, all the “positions” cited in the Treasury Notice (including the full exercise of the First Amendment Right to Petition) are deemed “frivolous” simply because Government says so.
Then, on May 8, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit finally issued its decision in We The People v. United States (seven months after it heard oral argument), ruling that the Government is not obligated to respond to the People’s First Amendment Petitions for Redress and, therefore, the People do not have the Right to retain their money until the Government responds.
The Judiciary fell into line with the “verdict” directed by the actions of the Legislative branch on December 9, 2006, and the Executive branch on March 15, 2007. A ruling that abused the judicial doctrine of stare decisis by relying on a principle of law laid down in two irrelevant cases.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion but that there has been a tacit assent by the three branches of the central government to actively thwart and quash any attempt by the People to enforce their Right to hold the Government accountable to the rest of the Constitution, even as the Government has patently refused to honor its obligation to respond to the People’s First Amendment Petitions for Redress.
The People of America should roil when they fully realize what effect these actions have had upon their Freedom.
A Petition for Certiorari (w/ Appendix) was filed, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case which could have recognized the People’s Right to peaceably hold the Government accountable to the Constitution, thereby shifting the ultimate power in our society from the Government back to the People, where it was meant to reside in the first place.
A Scheme Well-Concealed
Who among us knew that a very lengthy bill, the “Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,” widely popular because it retroactively extended for two years, hundreds of tax credits that had expired in December 2005, which was introduced and passed both houses of Congress in three days in December 2006 (with no record of who voted for or against the bill) actually included a buried provision that authorized the Executive branch to prescribe a list of “specified frivolous positions” and to fine anyone $5,000 if they cite any of those positions as a reason for retaining their money? The Table of Contents for the Act itself runs 25 pages.
Who among us knew that on March 15, 2007, the IRS published Notice 2007-30 containing a list of “specified frivolous positions,” and that the list included “the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances”, among many others and now being used against citizens who are standing up and acting on their beliefs?
Who among us was able to see the connection between the acts of the Congress and Treasury and the May 8, 2007 decision by the Court in We The People v. United States, declaring the Government is not obligated to respond to the People’s Petitions for Redress of constitutional torts and the People have no Right to peaceably enforce their Rights?
What great discords and suffering might have been prevented, especially now, in these days of great national distress and economic turmoil had a government founded of the People, by the People, and for the People, been willing to openly answer the questions asked by the People in their Petitions for Redress.
It is clear that we, the People are up against unjust government and laws. If we are to maintain the great American experiment, it is essential for the leaders of every group of “Freedom Keepers” to come together and meet face-to-face, with great haste, to develop a “Liberty Matrix” and a peaceful course of action for the Free to defend the greatest governing documents ever given to mankind and with the recollection that the cause of America is still the cause of the World.
Related Posts:
The Future is Calling (Part 1) – The Chasm
Friday, November 19th, 2010The Chasm: The Future Is Calling (Part One)
© 2003 – 2010 by G. Edward Griffin Revised 2010 April 4
INTRODUCTION
G. Edward Griffin is a writer and documentary film producer with many successful titles to his credit. Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. He has dealt with such diverse subjects as archaeology and ancient Earth history, the Federal Reserve System and international banking, terrorism, internal subversion, the history of taxation, U.S. foreign policy, the science and politics of cancer therapy, the Supreme Court, and the United Nations. His better-known works include The Creature from Jekyll Island, World without Cancer, The Discovery of Noah’s Ark, Moles in High Places, The Open Gates of Troy, No Place to Hide, The Capitalist Conspiracy, More Deadly than War, The Grand Design, The Great Prison Break, and The Fearful Master.
Mr. Griffin is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in speech and communications. In preparation for writing his book on the Federal Reserve System, he enrolled in the College for Financial Planning located in Denver, Colorado. His goal was not to become a professional financial planner but to better understand the real world of investments and money markets. He obtained his CFP designation (Certified Financial Planner) in 1989.
Mr. Griffin is a recipient of the coveted Telly Award for excellence in television production, the creator of the Reality Zone Audio Archives, and is President of American Media, a publishing and video production company in Southern California. He has served on the board of directors of The National Health Federation and The International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends and is Founder and President of The Cancer Cure Foundation. He is the founder and president of Freedom Force International.
====================
OVERVIEW
Thank you, Richard, and thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. What a terrific introduction that was; but, in all honesty, I must tell you that it greatly exaggerates the importance of my work. I should know. I wrote it.
The dangerous thing about platform introductions is that they tend to create unrealistic expectations. You have just been led to anticipate that, somehow, I am going to make a complex subject easy to understand. Well, that’s quite a billing. I hope I can live up to that expectation today; but it remains to be seen if I can really do that with this topic: The War on Terrorism. How can anyone make that easy to understand? There are so many issues and so much confusion. I feel like the proverbial mosquito in a nudist camp. I know what I have to do. I just don’t know where to begin.
There is a well-known rule in public speaking that applies to complex topics. It is: First, tell them what you’re going to tell them. Then tell them. And, finally, tell them what you told them. I’m going to follow that rule today, and I will begin by making a statement that I have carefully crafted to be as shocking as possible. That’s primarily because I want you to remember it. When I tell you what I’m going to tell you, I know that, for many of you, it will sound absurd, and you’ll think I have gone completely out of my mind. Then, for the main body of my presentation, I will tell you what I told you by presenting facts to prove that everything I said is true. And, finally, at the end, I will tell you what I told you by repeating my opening statement; and, by then hopefully, it will no longer seem absurd.
What I am going to tell you is this: Although it is commonly believed that the War on Terrorism is a noble effort to defend freedom, in reality, it has little to do with terrorism and even less to do with the defense of freedom. There are other agendas at work; agendas that are far less praiseworthy; agendas that, in fact, are just the opposite of what we are told. The purpose of this presentation is to prove that, what is unfolding today is, not a war on terrorism to defend freedom, but a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism.
That is what I’m going to tell you today, and you are probably wondering how anyone in his right mind could think he could prove such a statement as that. So let’s get right to it; and the first thing we must do is confront the word proof. What is proof? There is no such thing as absolute proof. There is only evidence. Proof may be defined as sufficient evidence to convince the observer that a particular hypothesis is true. The same evidence that is convincing to one person may not convince another. In that event, the case is proved to the first person but not to the second one who still needs more evidence. So, when we speak of proof, we are really talking about evidence.
It’s my intent to tell you what I told you by developing the case slowly and methodically; to show motive and opportunity; to introduce eyewitnesses and the testimony of experts. In other words, I will provide evidence – upon evidence – upon evidence until the mountain is so high that even the most reluctant skeptic must conclude that the case has been proved.
Where do we find this evidence? The first place to look is in history. The past is the key to the present, and we can never fully understand where we are today unless we know what path we traveled to get here. It was Will Durant who said: “Those who know nothing about history are doomed forever to repeat it.”
Are we doomed to repeat history in the war on terrorism? If we continue to follow the circular path we are now taking, I believe that we are. But to find out if that is true, we need to go back in time. So, I invite you to join me, now, in my time machine. We are going to splash around in history for a while and look at some great events and huge mistakes to see if there are parallels, any lessons to be learned for today. I must warn you: it will seem that we are lost in time. We are going to go here and there, and then jump back further, and then forward in time, and we will be examining issues that may make you wonder “What on Earth has this to do with today?” But I can assure you, when we reach the end of our journey, you will see that everything we cover has a direct relevance to today and, in particular, to the war on terrorism.
THE HIDDEN AGENDA
Now that we are in our time machine, we turn the dial to the year 1954 and, suddenly, we find ourselves in the plush offices of the Ford Foundation in New York City. There are two men seated at a large, Mahogany desk, and they are talking. They cannot see or hear us, but we can see them very well. One of these men is Rowan Gaither, who was the President of the Ford Foundation at that time. The other is Mr. Norman Dodd, the chief investigator for what was called the Reece Committee, which was a Congressional committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations. The Ford Foundation was one of those, so he is there as part of his Congressional responsibilities.
In 1982, I met Mr. Dodd in his home state of Virginia where, at the time, I had a television crew gathering interviews for a documentary film. I previously had read his testimony and realized how important it was; so, when our crew had open time, I called him on the telephone and asked if he would be willing to make a statement before our cameras, and he said, “Of course.” I’m glad we obtained the interview when we did, because Dodd was advanced in years, and it wasn’t long afterward that he passed away. We were very fortunate to capture his story in his own words. What we are about to witness from our time machine was confirmed in minute detail twenty years later and preserved on video.
The reason for Dodd’s investigation was that the American public had become alarmed by reports that large tax-exempt foundations were promoting the ideologies of Communism and Fascism and advocating the elimination of the United States as a sovereign nation. As far back as the 1930s, William Randolph Hearst had written a series of blistering editorials in his national chain of newspapers in which he cited Carnegie Foundation publications that spouted Communist slogans identical to what was coming from the Communist Party itself. When the Carnegie Endowment published an article written by Joseph Stalin attacking Capitalism and praising Communism, Hearst called it “propaganda, pure and simple.” He continued:
Its publication by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is an act of thorough disloyalty to America – indistinguishable from the common and familiar circulation of seditious and subversive literature by secret creators. The organ which carries such stuff, even if it has the imprint of the Carnegie Endowment, is not one whit less blameworthy and censurable than the skulking enemy of society whose scene of operation is the dark alley and the hideout.1
In another editorial, dated March 11, 1935, Hearst turned the spotlight on Nicholas Murray Butler, who was the President of Columbia University and also President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hearst quoted a report written by Butler which was a strategy for abolishing the United States as a sovereign country. He concluded:
In his report to the Directors of the Fund which Andrew Carnegie left to promote the Europeanization of America under the mask of universal peace, Dr. Butler expounds quite frankly the astounding Anti-American propaganda that this organization is carrying on.
This movement is for what Dr. Butler calls a WORLD STATE. It is the most seditious proposition ever laid before the American public, SEDITIOUS because it gives aid and comfort to the communist, the fascist and the nazist, absolute enemies of the very rock bottom principles on which our Government is founded.2
Voices of outrage also were heard in Congress. George Holden Tinkham of Massachusetts, Louis T. Mc Fadden of Pennsylvania, and Martin J. Sweeney of Ohio castigated the tax-exempt foundations as disloyal to America and seditious to the government. Tinkham called for the creation of a committee to investigate tax-supported organizations working for the “denationalization of the United States.” Congress, however, was inert on that topic, and nothing happened until after the end of World War II. In spite of strong opposition from within Congress, the Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was formed in April 1952 and turned over to Congressman Carrol Reece of Tennessee. It was this committee that Norman Dodd served as the chief investigator, and it is in that capacity that we now see him at the New York offices of the Ford Foundation.
We are now in the year 1954, and we hear Mr. Gaither say to Mr. Dodd, “Would you be interested in knowing what we do here at the Ford Foundation?” And Mr. Dodd says, “Yes! That’s exactly why I’m here. I would be very interested, sir.” Then, without any prodding at all, Gaither says, “Mr. Dodd, we operate in response to directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant making power to alter life in the United States so that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
Dodd almost falls off of his chair when he hears that. Then he says to Gaither, “Well, sir, you can do anything you please with your grant making powers, but don’t you think you have an obligation to make a disclosure to the American people? You enjoy tax exemption, which means you are indirectly subsidized by taxpayers, so, why don’t you tell the Congress and the American people what you just told me?” And Gaither replies, “We would never dream of doing such a thing.”
A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
The question that arises in Mr. Dodd’s mind is: How would it be possible for anyone to think they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union and, by implication, with other nations of the world? What an absurd thought that would be – especially in 1954. That would require the abandonment of American concepts of justice, traditions of liberty, national sovereignty, cultural identity, constitutional protections, and political independence, to name just a few. Yet, these men were deadly serious about it. They were not focused on the question of if this could be done. Their only question was how to do it? What would it take to change American attitudes? What would it take to convince them to abandon their heritage in exchange for global union?
The answer was provided by the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace, the same group that had been the center of controversy in the 1930s. When Dodd visited that organization and began asking about their activities, the President said, “Mr. Dodd, you have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time consuming for us to answer them all, so I have a counter proposal. Why don’t you send a member of your staff to our facilities, and we will open our minute books from the very first meeting of the Carnegie Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy whatever you find there. Then you will know everything we are doing.”
Again, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was newly appointed and probably had never actually read the minutes himself. So Dodd accepted the offer and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment facilities. Her name was Mrs. Catherine Casey who, by the way, was hostile to the activity of the Congressional Committee. Political opponents of the Committee had placed her on the staff to be a watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her attitude was: “What could possibly be wrong with tax-exempt foundations? They do so much good.” So, that was the view of Mrs. Casey when she went to the boardroom of the Carnegie Foundation. She took her Dictaphone machine with her (they used mechanically inscribed belts in those days) and recorded, word for word, many of the key passages from the minutes of this organization, starting with the very first meeting. What she found was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her mind. She became ineffective in her work after that and had to be given another assignment.
This is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of the board discussed how to alter life in the United States; how to change the attitudes of Americans to give up their traditional principles and concepts of government and be more receptive to what they call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about what the word collectivist means in a moment, but those who wrote the documents we will be quoting use that word often and they have a clear understanding of what it means.
At the Carnegie Foundation board meetings, they discussed this question in a scholarly fashion. After months of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that, out of all of the options available for altering political and social attitudes, there was only one that was historically dependable. That option was war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security against a deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace declared in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to bring the United States into war.
They also said there were other actions needed, and these were their exact words: “We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order, so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the teaching of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues relating to international affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment.
Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed at great length how to do that. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and presented to them the proposal that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism, but they were turned down flat. Then they decided – and, again, these are their own words, “We must create our own stable of historians.”
They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic world?” And the answer was “Yes.”
So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future. In other words, in the guise of analyzing history, they would create history by conditioning future generations to accept collectivism as desirable and inevitable.
THE BIRTH OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION
Under the orchestrating baton of Nicholas Butler, President of Columbia University and President of the Carnegie Endowment, an organization was formed in 1884 called The American Historical Association. This then created a series of controlled groups, called Committees, each of which focused on a particular segment of the overall educational mission. After these had published their recommendations, the Carnegie Fund created another controlled group in 1929 called The Commission on the Social Studies, which attracted to its membership an impressive list of academic personalities, including the Superintendant of Schools in Washington, D.C., the Director of the American Geological Society of New York, the President of Radcliff College, the Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota, the head of the Institute for the Study of Law at John Hopkins University, and eleven professors of history at such prestigious institutions as Columbia University and the Universities of Chicago, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Other institutions that provided staff services or facilitated its work in other ways included Harvard, Stanford, Smith College, and the Universities of Iowa, North Carolina and West Virginia. The Commission was funded by a $340,000 grant from the Carnegie Corporation – at a time when $5,000 was an excellent annual salary for a college professor. The Commission on the Social Studies is remembered today for its role in launching what has come to be known as progressive education. The self-admitted goal of progressive educators was – and is – to de-emphasize academic excellence in favor of awareness of social and political issues. That’s the first half. The second half is that those issues must be presented so as to promote three concepts: (1) National sovereignty is the cause of war and must be replaced by world government; (2) Personal property should be eliminated because it leads to selfishness, and (3) people will not assist or cooperate with each other in freedom so they must be forced to do so by the state. Since those are key features of collectivism, the unspoken lesson that students learn is that collectivism is good and is the wave of the future.
One of the better known members of the Commission on the Social Studies was George Counts, Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. After the Bolshevik Revolution, Counts travelled to the Soviet Union to witness Communism first hand and returned with the conviction that the Soviet model was the ideal social system. After the war, when Stalin’s brutality against his own people became widely known and when Russia resumed an aggressive stance against Western nations, Counts became a critic of the Soviet regime. His objection, however, was with Stalin’s actions and policies, not his adherence to collectivism, which Counts continued to advocate. His 1932 book, Dare the School Build a New Social Order,3 not only expressed his personal views, it was a popularized version of what the Commission hoped to instill into the educational system. He wrote: If property rights are to be diffused in industrial society, natural resources and all important forms of capital will have to be collectively owned. … This clearly means that, if democracy is to survive in the United States, it must abandon its individualistic affiliations in the sphere of economics. … Within these limits, as I see it, our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern.
The important point is that fundamental changes in the economic system are imperative. Whatever service historic capitalism may have rendered in the past, and they have been many, its days are numbered. With its dedication to the principles of selfishness, its exaltation of the profit motive, its reliance on the forces of competition, and its placing of property above human rights,4 it will either have to be displaced altogether or changed so radically in form and spirit that its identity will become completely lost.
THE REAL PURPOSE OF MODERN EDUCATION
In 1932, the Commission released its first report entitled A Charter for the Social Studies in the Schools, which proclaimed its goals. This was followed in 1934 by its Conclusions and Recommendations. Here are a few examples from that report. Please note that, while this was written in the style of academic literature, it was created to the precise specifications of those who paid the bill. It must not be overlooked that, although these men held doctorates in history, they were writers for hire. They undoubtedly believed in the desirability of collectivism – that’s the reason they were chosen in the first place. Their mission, however, was, not to write past history objectively, but to present it in such a way as to create attitudes so as to influence future history. In other words, they viewed themselves as social engineers and were propagandists for their benefactors.
The commission could not limit itself to a survey of text-books, methods of instruction and schemes of examination, but was compelled to consider the conditions and prospects of the American people as a part of world civilization now merging into a world order. … The American civilization is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism and is embarking on vast experiences in social planning and control. …
Under the molding influence of socialized processes of living … there is a notable waning of the once widespread popular faith in economic individualism; and leaders in public affairs, supported by a growing mass of the population, are demanding the introduction into economy of ever-wider measures of planning and control. … Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that, in the United States as in other countries, the age of individualism and laissez faire in economy and government is closing and that a new age of collectivism is emerging. …
Almost certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary cooperation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy. A corresponding enlargement of the function of government and in increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to individual discretion. … The actually integrating economy of the present day is a forerunner of a consciously integrated society in which individual economic actions and individual property rights will be altered and abridged. …
The emerging economy will involve the placing of restraints on individual enterprise, propensities, and acquisitive egoism in agriculture, industry and labor and generally on the conception, ownership, management, and use of property. …
Organized public education … is now compelled, if it is to fulfill its social obligations, to adjust its objectives, its curriculum, its methods of instruction and its administrative procedures to the requirements of the emerging integrated order. … From this point of view, a supreme purpose of education in the United States … is the preparation of the rising generation to enter the society now coming into being.5
If you have been puzzled by the bizarre results of government controlled education since World War II, please go back and read that summary again. Many exposés have been written about progressive education, the demise of national pride, and the dumbing down of America, but none do a better job explaining it than the words of the founders themselves.
These Conclusions and Recommendations were not unanimously endorsed by the sixteen-member commission. Several of the group refused to sign because they thought the concepts were too radical. Others had no problem with the concepts but disliked the recommended curriculum. Their minority dissent, however, was of little consequence and soon forgotten.
Reactions outside academia were more dramatic. Headlines in the New York Times blasted: “Collectivist Era Seen in Survey, Transition from Individualist Age Under Way.” The New York Herald Tribune carried a similar story. An editorial in the New York Sun on May 23 was entitled “Propaganda in Education.” The following year, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin carried a story entitled “Breeding Communism.”6
In spite of a few outbursts of public indignation, the news value of this story soon faded, and Progressive Education continued a steady, unchallenged march of conquest over public education, while being quietly funded from behind the scenes by the Carnegie Endowment Fund and other powerful tax-exempt foundations under the appearance of philanthropy.
Now let’s go to the words of Norman Dodd, as he described these events before our cameras in 1982. He said:
This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.7
Now we must turn off our time machine for a few moments and deal with this word collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using that word over and over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what it means, the advocates of collectivism have a very clear understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now.
THE CHASM: TWO ETHICS THAT DIVIDE THE WESTERN WORLD
There are many words commonly used today to describe political attitudes. We are told that there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressives, right-wingers, leftwingers, socialists, communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Fascists, Nazis; and if that isn’t confusing enough, now we have neo conservatives, neo Nazis, and neo everything else. When we are asked what our political orientation is, we are expected to choose from one of these words. If we don’t have a strong political opinion or if we’re afraid of making a bad choice, then we play it safe and say we are moderates – adding yet one more word to the list.
Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. In the United States, the Democrat Party is home for the Left, while the Republican Party is home for the Right. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of overlap. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church. Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.
Not one person in a thousand can clearly define the ideology that any of these words represent. They are used, primarily, as labels to impart an aura of either goodness or badness, depending on who uses the words and what emotions they trigger in their minds. Most political debates sound like they originate at the tower of Babel. Everyone is speaking a different language. The words may sound familiar, but speakers and listeners each have their own private definitions.
It has been my experience that, once the definitions are commonly understood, most of the disagreements come to an end. To the amazement of those who thought they were bitter ideological opponents, they often find they are actually in basic agreement. So, to deal with this word, collectivism, our first order of business is to throw out the garbage. If we are to make sense of the political agendas that dominate our planet today, we must not allow our thinking to be contaminated by the emotional load of the old vocabulary.
It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically, they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world.8
The one thing that is common to both collectivists and individualists is that the vast majority of them are well intentioned. They want the best life possible for their families, for their countrymen, and for mankind. They want prosperity and justice for their fellow man. Where they disagree is how to bring those things about.
I have studied collectivist literature for over fifty years; and, after a while, I realized there were certain recurring themes, what I consider to be the five pillars of collectivism. If they are turned upside down, they also are the five pillars of individualism. In other words, there are five major concepts of social and political relationships; and, within each of them, collectivists and individualists have opposite viewpoints.
1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights. Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ over how important compared to other values and especially over the origin of those rights.
Rights are not tangible entities that can be viewed or measured. They are abstract concepts held in the human mind. They are whatever men agree they are at a given time and place. Their nature has changed with the evolution of civilization. Today, they vary widely from culture to culture. One culture may accept that rights are granted by rulers who derive authority from God. Another culture may claim that rights are granted by God directly to the people. In other cultures, rights are perceived as a claim to the material possessions of others. People living in tribal or military dictatorships don’t spend much time even thinking about rights because they have no expectation of ever having them. Some primitive cultures don’t even have a word for rights.
Because of the great diversity in the concept of human rights, they cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. However, that does not mean they cannot be defined to our satisfaction. We do not have to insist that those in other cultures agree with us; but, if we wish to live in a culture to our liking, one in which we have the optimum amount of personal freedom, then we must be serious about a preferred definition of human rights. If we have no concept of what rights should be, then it is likely we will live under a definition not to our liking.
The first thing to understand as we work toward a useful definition of rights is that their source determines their nature. This will be covered in greater detail further along, but the concept needs to be stated here. If we can agree on the source of rights, then we will have little difficulty agreeing on their nature. For example, if a security guard is hired by a gated community to protect the property of its residents, the nature of the guard’s activity must be limited to the activities that the residents themselves are entitled to perform. That means the guard may patrol the community and, if necessary, physically deter burglaries and crimes of aggressive violence. But the guard is not authorized to compel the residents to send their children to bed by 10 PM or donate to the Red Cross. Why not? Because the residents are the source of the authority; the nature of the authority cannot include any act that is denied to the source; and the residents have no right to compel their neighbors in these matters.
RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD
In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution.
Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.
Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If rights are earned on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the winners, but who are they? Do governments win wars or do the people? If governments win wars and people merely serve them as in medieval times, then governments hold the rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and governments merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to governments. If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.
The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men….
Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of the state is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.
By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.
I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.
2. THE ORIGIN OF STATE POWER
The second concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with the origin of state power. As stated previously, individualists believe that a just government derives its power, not from conquest and subjugation, but from the people. That means the state cannot have any legitimate powers unless they are given to it by its citizens. Another way of putting it is that governments may do only those things that their citizens also have a right to do. If individuals don’t have the right to perform a certain act, then they can’t grant that power to their elected representatives. They can’t delegate what they don’t have. It makes no matter how many of them there may be. If none of them have a specified power to delegate, then a million of them don’t have it either.
Let us use an extreme example. Let us assume that a ship has been sunk in a storm, and three exhausted men are struggling for survival in the sea. Suddenly, they come upon a life-buoy ring. The ring is designed only to keep one person afloat; but, with careful cooperation between them, it can keep two of them afloat. However, when the third man grasps the ring, it becomes useless, and all three, once again, are at the mercy of the sea. They try taking turns: one treading while two hold on to the ring; but after a few hours, none of them have strength to continue. The grim truth gradually becomes clear. Unless one of them is cut loose from the group, all three will drown. What, then, should these men do?
Most people would say that two of the men would be justified in overpowering the third and casting him off. The right of self-survival is paramount. Taking the life of another, terrible as such an act would be, is morally justified if it is necessary to save your own life. That certainly is true for individual action, but what about collective action? Where do two men get the right to gang up on one man?
The collectivist answers that two men have a greater right to life because they outnumber the third one. It’s a question of mathematics: The greatest good for the greatest number. That makes the group more important than the individual and it justifies two men forcing one man away from the ring. There is a certain logic to this argument but, if we further simplify the example, we will see that, although the action may be correct, it is justified by the wrong reasoning.
Let us assume, now, that there are only two survivors – so we eliminate the concept of the group – and let us also assume that the ring will support only one swimmer, not two. Under these conditions, it would be similar to facing an enemy in battle. You must kill or be killed. Only one can survive. We are dealing now with the competing right of self-survival for each individual, and there is no mythological group to confuse the issue. Under this extreme condition, it is clear that each person would have the right to do whatever he can to preserve his own life, even if it leads to the death of another. Some may argue that it would be better to sacrifice one’s life for a stranger, but few would argue that not to do so would be wrong. So, when the conditions are simplified to their barest essentials, we see that the right to deny life to others comes from the individual’s right to protect his own life. It does not need the so-called group to ordain it.
In the original case of three survivors, the justification for denying life to one of them does not come from a majority vote but from their individual and separate right of self-survival. In other words, either of them, acting alone, would be justified in this action. They are not empowered by the group. When we hire police to protect our community, we are merely asking them to do what we, ourselves, have a right to do. Using physical force to protect our lives, liberty, and property is a legitimate function of government, because that power is derived from the people as individuals. It does not arise from the group.9
Here’s one more example – a lot less extreme but far more typical of what actually goes on every day in legislative bodies. If government officials decide one day that no one should work on Sunday, and even assuming the community generally supports their decision, where would they get the authority to use the police power of the state to enforce such a decree? Individual citizens don’t have the right to compel their neighbors not to work, so they can’t delegate that right to their government. Where, then, would the state get the authority? The answer is that it would come from itself; it would be self-generated. It would be similar to the divine right of ancient monarchies in which it was assumed that governments represent the power and the will of God. In more modern times, most governments don’t even pretend to have God as their authority, they just rely on swat teams and armies, and anyone who objects is eliminated.
When governments claim to derive their authority from any source other than the governed, it always leads to the destruction of liberty. Preventing men from working on Sunday would not seem to be a great threat to freedom, but once the principle is established, it opens the door for more edicts, and more, and more until freedom is gone. If we accept that the state or any group has the right to do things that individuals alone do not have the right to do, then we have unwittingly endorsed the concept that rights are not intrinsic to the individual and that they, in fact, do originate with the state. Once we accept that, we are on the road to tyranny.
Collectivists are not concerned over such picky issues. They believe that governments do, in fact, have powers that are greater than those of their citizens, and the source of those powers, they say, is, not the individuals within society, but society itself, the group to which individuals belong.
3. GROUP SUPREMACY
This is the third concept that divides collectivism from individualism. Collectivism is based on the belief that the group is more important than the individual. According to this view, the group is an entity of its own and it has rights of its own. Furthermore, those rights are more important than individual rights. Therefore, it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals if necessary for “the greater good of the greater number.” How many times have we heard that? Who can object to the loss of liberty if it is justified as necessary for the greater good of society? The ultimate group, of course, is the state. Therefore, the state is more important than individual citizens, and it is acceptable to sacrifice individuals, if necessary, for the benefit of the state. This concept is at the heart of all modern totalitarian systems built on the model of collectivism.
Individualists on the other hand say, “Wait a minute. Group? What is group? That’s just a word. You can’t touch a group. You can’t see a group. All you can touch and see are individuals. The word group is an abstraction and doesn’t exist as a tangible reality. It’s like the abstraction called forest. Forest doesn’t exist. Only trees exist. Forest is the concept of many trees. Likewise, the word group merely describes the abstract concept of many individuals. Only individuals are real and, therefore, there is no such thing as group rights. Only individuals have rights.
Just because there are many individuals in one group and only a few in another does not give a higher priority to the individuals in the larger group – even if you call it the state. A majority of voters do not have more rights than the minority. Rights are not derived from the power of numbers. They do not come from the group. They are intrinsic with each human being.
When someone argues that individuals must be sacrificed for the greater good of society, what they are really saying is that some individuals are to be sacrificed for the greater good of other individuals. The morality of collectivism is based on numbers. Anything may be done so long as the number of people benefiting supposedly is greater than the number of people being sacrificed. I say supposedly, because, in the real world, those who decide who is to be sacrificed don’t count fairly. Dictators always claim they represent the greater good of the greater number but, in reality, they and their support organizations usually comprise less than one percent of the population. The theory is that someone has to speak for the masses and represent their best interest, because they are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. So collectivist leaders, wise and virtuous as they are, make the decisions for them. It is possible to explain any atrocity or injustice as a necessary measure for the greater good of society. Modern totalitarians always parade as humanitarians.
Because individualists do not accept group supremacy, collectivists often portray them as being selfish and insensitive to the needs of others. That theme is common in schools today. If a child is not willing to go along with the group, he is criticized as being socially disruptive and not a good “team player” or a good citizen. Those nice folks at the tax-exempt foundations had a lot to do with that. But individualism is not based on ego. It is based on principle. If you accept the premise that individuals may be sacrificed for the group, you have made a huge mistake on two counts. First, individuals are the essence of the group, which means the group is being sacrificed anyway, piece by piece. Secondly, the underlying principle is deadly. Today, the individual being sacrificed may be unknown to you or even someone you dislike. Tomorrow, it could be you. It takes but a moment’s reflection to realize that the greater good for the greater number is not achieved by sacrificing individuals but by protecting individuals. In reality, the greater good for the greater number is best served by individualism, not collectivism.
REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between republics and democracies. In recent years, it is commonly believed that a democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution, and the justification for invading other countries and overthrowing their tyrannical governments is, we are told, to spread democracy throughout the world. But, if you read the documents and the speech transcripts of the men who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of democracy – and if you look at the reality of life in those lands where democracy has been delivered, you find little difference between the old and new regimes, except that the new ones often are worse.
In colonial America, Samuel Adams, a prominent leader of the movement for independence, expressed the common view of his colleagues when he said: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
This understanding of the dark side of democracy was not unique to the American colonists. European historians and political writers of the period had come to the same conclusion. In England, Lord Acton wrote: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” In Scotland, a history professor at the University of Edinburgh, Alexander Tyler, wrote:
A democracy is always temporary in nature – it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy – usually followed by a dictatorship.
Those who drafted the American Constitution believed that a democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government; and so they created what they called a republic. Unfortunately, that word no longer has the classic meaning it did in 1787. Today it is used indiscriminately for everything from military dictatorships, such as The Republic of Angola, to collectivist dictatorships such as the Republic of China. But, when the American Republic was created, the word had a precise meaning and it was understood by everyone.
This is why the word democracy does not appear in the Constitution; and, when Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, it’s to the republic for which it stands, not the democracy. When Colonel Davy Crockett joined the Texas Revolution prior to the famous Battle of the Alamo, he refused to sign the oath of allegiance to the future government of Texas until the wording was changed to the future republican government of Texas.10 The reason this is important is that the difference between a democracy and a republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism.
In a pure democracy, the majority rules; end of discussion. You might say, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there could be plenty wrong with that. What about a lynch mob?
There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and he is at the end of the rope. That’s democracy in action.
“Wait a minute,” you say. “The majority should rule. Yes, but not to the extent of denying the rights of the minority,” and, of course, you would be correct. As Lord Acton observed:
It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. … The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
To provide security for minorities is precisely the role of a republic. A republic is a state based on the principle of limited majority rule so that the minority – even a minority of one – will be protected from the whims and passions of the majority.
Republics are characterized by written constitutions that spell out the rules to make that possible. That was the function of the American Bill of Rights, which is nothing more than a list of things the state may not do. It says that Congress, even though it represents the majority, shall pass no law denying the minority their rights to free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and other “unalienable” rights.
These limitations on majority rule are the essence of a republic, and they also are at the core of the ideology called individualism. And so here is another major difference between these two concepts: Collectivism on the one hand, supporting any action so long as it can be said to be for the greater good of the greater number; and individualism on the other hand, defending the rights of the minority against the passions and greed of the majority.
DEMOCRACY COMES TO IN AMERICA
The seed of individualism was firmly planted in American soil, but it was poorly cultivated and soon was crowded out by the weeds of collectivism. When the Founding Fathers passed away, so did the Spirit of 76 that was unique to their generation. The new generations, no longer threatened by tyranny from abroad and having no perception of the possibility of tyranny from within, became more interested in material comfort and pleasure than in the ideology of freedom. The French Revolution had captured their imagination, and they were attracted to the slogans of Equality, Fraternity, and Democracy. The right to vote became the center of their political philosophy, and they adopted the belief that, so long as the majority approves of a measure, it is good and proper. That nebulous thing called society became more important than people. The group had become more important than the individual.
Barely three generations after ratification of the Constitution, a young Frenchman, named Alexis de Tocqueville, toured the United States to prepare an official report to his government on the American prison system. His real interest, however, was the social and political environment in the New World. He found much to admire in America but he also observed what he thought were the seeds of its destruction. What he discovered was collectivism, which even then, was far advanced. Upon his return to France the following year, he began work on a four-volume analysis of the strengths and weaknesses he found. His perceptivity was remarkable, and his book, entitled Democracy in America, has remained as one of the world’s classic works in political science. As we read his words, which are so perfectly descriptive of our modern time, it is hard to believe that they were written in 1831:
The Americans hold that in every state the supreme power ought to emanate from the people; but when once that power is constituted, they can conceive, as it were, no limits to it, and they are ready to admit that it has the right to do whatever it pleases. … The idea of rights inherent in certain individuals is rapidly disappearing from the minds of men; the idea of the omnipotence and sole authority of society at large rises to fill its place.
The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain. By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again.11
4. COERCION VS FREEDOM
The fourth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with responsibilities and freedom of choice. We have spoken about the origin of rights, but there is a similar issue involving the origin of responsibilities. Rights and responsibilities go together. If you value the right to live your own life without others telling you what to do, then you must assume the responsibility to be independent, to provide for yourself without expecting others to take care of you. Rights and responsibilities are merely different sides of the same coin.
If only individuals have rights, then it follows that only individuals have responsibilities. If groups have rights, then groups also have responsibilities; and, therein, lies one of the greatest ideological challenges of our modern age.
Individualists are champions of individual rights. Therefore, they accept the principle of individual responsibility rather than group responsibility. They believe that everyone has a personal and direct obligation to provide, first for himself and his family, and then for others who may be in need. That does not mean they don’t believe in helping each other. Just because I am an individualist does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I believe that moving it is my responsibility, not someone else’s, and it’s up to me to organize the voluntary assistance of others.
The collectivist, on the other hand, declares that individuals are not personally responsible for charity, for raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even providing for themselves. These are group obligations of the state. The individualist expects to do it himself; the collectivist wants the government to do it for him: to provide employment and health care, a minimum wage, food, education, and a decent place to live. Collectivists are enamored by government. They worship government. They have a fixation on government as the ultimate group mechanism to solve all problems.
Individualists do not share that faith. They see government as the creator of more problems than it solves. They believe that freedom of choice will lead to the best solution of social and economic problems. Millions of ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and competition – in which the best solution becomes obvious by comparing its results to all others – that process will produce results that are far superior to what can be achieved by a group of politicians or a committee of so-called wise men.
By contrast, collectivists do not trust freedom. They are afraid of freedom. They are convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters such as what color socks you want to wear, but when it come to the important issues such as the money supply, banking practices, investments, insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not work. These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government. Otherwise there would be chaos.
There are two reasons for the popularity of that concept. One is that most of us have been educated in government schools, and that’s what we were taught. The other reason is that government is the one group that can legally force everyone to participate. It has the power of taxation, backed by jails and force of arms to compel everyone to fall in line, and that is a very appealing concept to the intellectual who pictures himself as a social engineer.
Collectivists say, “We must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.”
By contrast, individualists say, “We also think we are right and that the masses seldom do what we think they should do, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, could compel us to act as they decree, and that would be the end of our freedom.”
The affinity between intellectual egotism and coercion was dramatically demonstrated by Canadian law professor, Alan Young, who wrote an editorial in the March 28, 2004 edition of the Toronto Star. His topic was “hate crimes,” and his solution was a classic example of the collectivist mindset. He wrote:
The defining feature of the hate criminal is stupidity. It is a crime born of intellectual deficiency…. Criminal justice actually can do very little to combat stupidity…. The hate criminal probably needs rigorous deprogramming….
Just as some cancers require invasive surgery, the hate crime needs intrusive measures… The usual out-of-site, out-of-mind approach to modern punishment just won’t work in this case. For crimes of supreme stupidity we need Clockwork Orange justice – strapping the hate criminal into a chair for an interminable period, and keeping his eyes wide-open with metal clamps so he cannot escape from an onslaught of cinematic imagery carefully designed to break his neurotic attachment to self-induced intellectual impairment.
In the context of hate crime, I do have some regrets that we have a constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.12
One of the quickest ways to spot a collectivist is to see how he reacts to public problems. No matter what bothers him in his daily routine – whether it’s littering the highway, smoking in public, dressing indecently, bigotry, sending out junk mail – you name it, his immediate response is “There ought to be a law!” And, of course, the professionals in government who make a living from coercion are more than happy to cooperate. The consequence is that government just keeps growing and growing. It’s a one-way street. Every year there are more and more laws and less and less freedom. Each law by itself seems relatively benign, justified by some convenience or for the greater good of the greater number, but the process continues forever until government is total and freedom is dead. Bit-by-bit, the people, themselves, become the solicitor of their own enslavement.
THE ROBIN HOOD SYNDROME
A good example of this collectivist mindset is the use of government to perform acts of charity. Most people believe that we all have a responsibility to help others in need if we can, but what about those who disagree, those who couldn’t care less about the needs of others? Should they be allowed to be selfish while we are so generous? The collectivist sees people like that as justification for the use of coercion, because the cause is so worthy. He sees himself as a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the rich but giving to the poor. Of course, not all of it gets to the poor. After all, Robin and his men have to eat and drink and be merry, and that doesn’t come cheap. It takes a giant bureaucracy to administer a public charity, and the Robbing Hoods in government have become accustomed to a huge share of the loot, while the peasants – well, they’re grateful for whatever they get. They don’t care how much is consumed along the way. It was all stolen from someone else anyway.
The so-called charity of collectivism is a perversion of the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan who stopped along the highway to help a stranger who had been robbed and beaten. He even takes the victim to an inn and pays for his stay there until he recovers. Everyone approves of such acts of compassion and charity, but what would we think if the Samaritan had pointed his sword at the next traveler and threatened to kill him if he didn’t also help? If that had happened, I doubt if the story would have made it into the Bible; because, at that point, the Samaritan would be no different than the original robber – who also might have had a virtuous motive. For all we know, he could have claimed that he was merely providing for his family and feeding his children. Most crimes are rationalized in this fashion, but they are crimes nevertheless. When coercion enters, charity leaves.13
Individualists refuse to play this game. We expect everyone to be charitable, but we also believe that a person should be free not to be charitable if he doesn’t want to. If he prefers to give to a different charity than the one we urge on him, if he prefers to give a smaller amount than we think he should, or if he prefers not to give at all, we believe that we have no right to force him to our will. We may try to persuade him to do so; we may appeal to his conscience; and especially we may show the way by our own good example; but we reject any attempt to gang up on him, either by physically restraining him while we remove the money from his pockets or by using the ballot box to pass laws that will take his money through taxation. In either case, the principle is the same. It’s called stealing.
Collectivists would have you believe that individualism is merely another word for selfishness, because individualists oppose welfare and other forms of coercive redistribution of wealth, but just the opposite is true. Individualists advocate true charity, which is the voluntary giving of their own money, while collectivists advocate the coercive giving of other people’s money; which, of course, is why it is so popular.
One more example: The collectivist will say, “I think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt if they don’t wear seatbelts. So, let’s pass a law and require everyone to wear them. If they don’t, we’ll put those dummies in jail.” The individualist says, “I think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt in accidents if they don’t wear them, but I don’t believe in forcing anyone to do so. I believe in convincing them with logic and persuasion and good example, if I can, but I also believe in freedom of choice.”
One of the most popular slogans of Marxism is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That’s the cornerstone of theoretical socialism, and it is a very appealing concept. A person hearing that slogan for the first time might say: “What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that the essence of charity and compassion toward those in need? What could possibly be wrong with giving according to your ability to others according to their need?” And the answer is, nothing is wrong with it – as far as it goes, but it is an incomplete concept. The unanswered question is how is this to be accomplished? Shall it be in freedom or through coercion?
I mentioned earlier that collectivists and individualists usually agree on objectives but disagree over means, and this is a classic example. The collectivist says take it by force of law. The individualist says give it through free will. The collectivist says not enough people will respond unless they are forced. The individualist says enough people will respond to achieve the task. Besides, the preservation of freedom is also important. The collectivist advocates legalized plunder in the name of a worthy cause, believing that the end justifies the means. The individualist advocates free will and true charity, believing that a worthy objective does not justify committing theft and surrendering freedom.
There is a story of a Bolshevik revolutionary who was standing on a soapbox speaking to a small crowd in Times Square. After describing the glories of socialism and communism, he said: “Come the revolution, everyone will eat peaches and cream.” A little old man at the back of the crown yelled out: “I don’t like peaches and cream.” The Bolshevik thought about that for a moment and then replied: “Come the revolution, comrade, you will like peaches and cream.”
This, then, is the fourth difference between collectivism and individualism, and it is perhaps the most fundamental of them all: collectivists believe in coercion; individualists believe in freedom.
5. EQUALITY VS. INEQUALITY UNDER LAW
The fifth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with the way people are treated under the law. Individualists believe that no two people are exactly alike, and each one is superior or inferior to others in many ways but, under law, they should all be treated equally. Collectivists believe that the law should treat people unequally in order to bring about desirable changes in society. They view the world as tragically imperfect. They see poverty and suffering and injustice and they conclude that something must be done to alter the forces that have produced these effects. They think of themselves as social engineers who have the wisdom to restructure society to a more humane and logical order. To do this, they must intervene in the affairs of men at all levels and redirect their activities according to a master plan. That means they must redistribute wealth and use the police power of the state to enforce prescribed behavior.
The consequence of this mindset can be seen everywhere in society today. Almost every country in the world has a tax system designed to treat people unequally depending on their income, their marital status, the number of children they have, their age, and the type of investments they may have. The purpose of this arrangement is to redistribute wealth, which means to favor some classes over others. In some cases, there are bizarre loopholes written into the tax laws just to favor one corporation or one politically influential group. Other laws provide tax-exemption and subsidies to favored groups or corporations. Inequality is the whole purpose of these laws.
In the realm of social relationships, there are laws to establish racial quotas, gender quotas, affirmative-action initiatives, and to prohibit expressions of opinion that may be objectionable to some group or to the master planners. In all of these measures, there is an unequal application of the law based on what group or class you happen to be in or on what opinion you hold. We are told that all of this is necessary to accomplish a desirable change in society. Yet, after more than a hundred years of social engineering, there is not one place on the globe where collectivists can point with pride and show where their master plan has actually worked as they predicted. There have been many books written about the collectivist utopia, but they never materialized in the real world. Wherever collectivism has been applied, the results have been more poverty than before, more suffering than before, and certainly more injustice than before.
There is a better way. Individualism is based on the premise that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. No class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
6. PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
When all of these factors are considered together, we come to the sixth ideological division between collectivism and individualism. Collectivists believe that the proper role of the state should be positive, that the state should take the initiative in all aspects of the affairs of men, that it should be aggressive, lead, and provide. It should be the great organizer of society.
Individualists believe that the proper function of the state is negative and defensive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more.14
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that, somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all. They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
In the United States and most European countries there is a mirage of two political parties supposedly opposing each other, one on the Right and the other on the Left. Yet, when we get past the party slogans and rhetoric, we find that the leaders of both parties support all the principles of collectivism that we have outlined. Indeed, they represent a right wing and a left wing, but they are two wings of the same ugly bird called collectivism. A true choice for freedom will not be found with either of them.
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists, and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why? Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different, collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of government possible. That government is best which governs least.
Now, we are ready to re-activate our time machine. The last images still linger before us. We still see the directors of the great tax-exempt foundations applying their vast financial resources to alter the attitudes of the American people so they will accept the merger of their nation with totalitarian regimes; and we still hear their words proclaiming that “the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.” It’s amazing, isn’t it, how much is contained in that one little word: collectivism.
1 As quoted by Catherine Palfrey Baldwin, And Men Wept (New York: Our Publications, 1955), p. 9.
2 Ibid.
3 (New York: John Day Co., 1932)
4 Point of order, Professor Counts: Property Rights ARE Human Rights. (Author)
5 Quoted by Baldwin, op. cit., pp. 137 – 140.
6 Quoted by Ronald W. Evans, The Social Studies Wars; What Should We Teach the Children? (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004), p. 58.
7 The complete transcript of Mr. Dodd’s testimony may be downloaded at no charge from the web site of Freedom Force International, www.freedom-force.org. The video from which this was taken is entitled The Hidden Agenda and may be obtained from The Reality Zone web site, www.realityzone.com.
8 In the Middle East and parts of Africa and Asia, there is a third ethic called theocracy, a form of government that combines church and state and compels citizens to accept a particular religious doctrine. That was common throughout early European Christendom and it appeared even in some of the colonies of the United States. It survives in today’s world in the form of Islam and it has millions of advocates. Any comprehensive view of political ideology must include theocracy, but time does not permit such scope in this presentation. For those interested in the author’s larger view, including theocracy, there is a summary called Which Path for Mankind? attached to the end of this essay.
9 The related question of a right to use deadly force to protect the lives of others is reviewed in Part Four in connection with the White House order to shoot down hijacked airliners if they pose a threat to ground populations.
10 “David Crockett: Parliamentarian,” by William Reed, National Parliamentarian, Vol. 64, Third Quarter, 2003, p. 30.
11 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. II (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1945), pp. 290 – 91, 318 – 19.
12 “Hate Criminal Needs Deprogramming,” by Alan Young, Toronto Star, March 28, 2004, p. F7.
13 Let’s be clear on this. If we or our families really were starving, most of us would steal if that were the only way to obtain food. It would be motivated by our intrinsic right to life, but let’s not call it virtuous charity. It would be raw survival.
14 There is a third category of human action that is neither proper nor improper, neither defensive nor aggressive; activity that may be undertaken by the state for convenience – such as building roads and maintaining recreational parks – provided they are funded, not from general taxes, but by those who use them. Otherwise, some would benefit at the expense of others, and that would be coercive re-distribution of wealth. These activities would be permissible because they have a negligible impact on freedom. I am convinced they would be more efficiently run and offer better public service if owned and operated by private industry, but there is no merit in being argumentative on that question when much more burning issues are at stake. After freedom is secure, we will have the luxury to debate these finer points. Another example of an optional activity is the allocation of broadcast frequencies to radio and TV stations. Although this does not protect lives, liberty, or property, it is a matter of convenience to orderly communications. There is no threat to personal freedom so long as the authority to grant licenses is administered impartially and does not favor one class of citizens or one point of view over another. Another example of an optional government activity would be a law in Hawaii to prevent the importation of snakes. Most Hawaiians want such a law for their convenience. This is not a proper function of government because it does not protect the lives, liberty, or property of its citizens, but it is not improper either so long as it is administered so that the cost is borne equally by all. It could be argued that this is a proper function of government, because snakes could threaten domestic animals that are the property of its citizens, but that would be stretching the point. It is this kind of stretching of reason that demagogues use when they want to consolidate power. Almost any government action could be rationalized as an indirect protection of life, liberty, or property. The defense against word games of this kind is to stand firm against funding in any way that causes a shift of wealth from one group to another. That strips away the political advantage that motivates most of the collectivist schemes in the first place. Without the possibility of legalized plunder, most of the brain games will cease. Finally, when issues become murky, and it really is impossible to clearly see if an action is acceptable for government, there is always a rule of thumb that can be relied on to show the proper way: That government is best which governs least.
Related Posts:
Reality Zone Unfiltered News 2010 October 16-22
Saturday, October 23rd, 2010 France: Strikes and riots, sponsored by unions in protest to raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, has resulted in fuel shortages and limited train service. This was to intimidate the government into compliance with workers’ demands. Riot police forced open a refinery to make fuel available again. More violence is expected as the nation continues to suffer from decades of collectivism.
Yahoo 2010 Oct 22 (Cached)
China: Government officials beat and kick an 8-months pregnant woman in the stomach then force her to abort because she violated the ‘one child’ policy.
Daily Mail 2010 Oct 21 (Cached)
US: In spite of the fact that most Americans are strongly opposed to Cap-and-Trade taxes, 32 states are involved in regional alliances to implement those taxes. One region has already raised over $700 million in carbon-credit auctions. [The only way to stop this is to throw out of office every politician who has supported these taxes and replace them with Constitutionalists.]
MorphCity 2010 Oct 21 (Cached)
Get a Free Digital Subscription to Republic Magazine; Voice of the Patriot Movement
Colgate is accused of attempting to steal a thousand-year old toothpaste formula. It has claimed a patent on an herbal formula that is commonly used in India without patent. This may become a test case against ‘bio-piracy’ wherein Western corporations attempt to patent useful substances commonly used in less-advanced regions of the world.
MyFox 2010 Oct 21 (Cached)
Animal microchips implanted into pets are linked to increased cancer rates.
Natural News 2010 Oct 20 (Cached)
Joan Veon, financial analyst, patriot, and member of the Freedom Force Hall of Honor passed away on October 18 after a courageous three-year battle with cancer. She was 61 years old. Her obituary is here.
Women’s Group 2010 Oct 20 (Cached)
EU leader admits he was not elected by the people or Parliament but was appointed by a “commission” and that it was done in secret. [That is precisely what opponents of the EU had warned against. Now it is too late. The same administrative dictatorship awaits Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans if the North American Union (supported by both Republican and Democrat Parties) is allowed to form.]
Prison Planet 2010 Oct 20 (Cached)
China: In a test program, pensioners are tracked with GPS, allowing their families to keep an eye on them. Children may be added to the test. [Does anyone really think that the government is concerned about families knowing the whereabouts of their grandparents? To us it looks like they are considering tracking everyone from cradle to grave, and this is just the start. We shall see.]
Telegraph 2010 Oct 20 (Cached)
US: NASA’s Goddard Institute fabricates Arctic temperatures in order to perpetuate the global-warming myth. So-called rising temperatures of the last decade were based on two assumptions with no data to support them and then giving those assumptions the same weight as real data points. This clearly is fraudulent science in the service of political agendas.
Real Science 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
US: Chicago public schools have banned student home-grown produce from their lunches because they may have had a pesticide sprayed on them and because only commercially-sold compost is allowed, not home-made compost.
Chicago Tribune 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
EU Commission proposes a Europe-wide Value-Added Tax on financial transactions, carbon emissions, and air transport charges – to start. They also want an energy tax and a corporate income tax. These are to be levied directly on citizens, bypassing their national governments.
RTE News 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
|
WORLD PREMIERE What in the World Are They Spraying! Documentary on chemtrails aka Geoengineering Saturday, Oct. 23, Atlanta, Georgia Producers G. Edward Griffin, Mike Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger will be present. Limited seating. |
US: Airline pilot refuses to go through the airport full-body scanner because he believes no one should be subject to a “virtual strip search.” He also refused a full-body pat down, because he doesn’t want federal agents putting their hands on him every time he goes to work. He says he did it to protect the rights and freedom of everyone, and now his job is in jeopardy.
Chicago Tribune 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
California: Analysts say that, by 2013, state pension obligations will be 5 times greater than total state tax revenue – and that’s just the pension fund. It does not include the cost of running the government itself. They call it a perfect storm. [Collectivist governments ultimately crush themselves to death with expenses. No level of taxation can now bring California back to solvency. The future is not pretty.]
Prison Planet 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
US: National Security Administration uses cartoon propaganda to manipulate young children into spying on each other for the government. [We accidentally carried a spoof about this sort of thing 2 weeks ago, but this is the real thing.]
Wired 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
Drug companies have paid 17,000 U.S. doctors to talk to other doctors about their products. Most of this has been done at seminars held at vacation resorts. [This is not illegal, but the phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind.]
Reuters 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
EU’s Monetary Affairs Commissioner says the G20 nations must coordinate their monetary policy to “rebalance” the world economy. [That means he wants centralized economic control, which means an end to national sovereignty.]
Reuters 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
US: Top 400 tax-exempt charities lose 11% in donations this year in response to economic downturn. People are giving less, but some are giving to smaller, local charities and donating goods instead of money – a good idea that reduces waste and corruption.
Yahoo 2010 Oct 17 (Cached)
UN Secretary-General will address a conference on global governance, as the New World Order grows. The focus will be on problems in the economy, global warming, and organized crime. [All of these will be offered as justification for more control. If the UN is further empowered, it will become the largest organized crime syndicate the world has ever known.]
NewsBlaze 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
Wikipedia administrator is barred by his peers from participating in any article or forum about global warming. He had turned Wikipedia into the world’s largest source of global-warming propaganda, blocking any attempt to include skeptical viewpoints and re-writing biographies of scientists who disagreed to make them look incompetent. [The decision to bar him comes years too late. He should be prosecuted, not barred. Be aware that Wikipedia has similar bias on most topics relating to health and national policy.]
National Post Posted 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
US Attorney General Eric Holder announced he will enforce federal law against marijuana even if California legalizes it. [This is a 10th Amendment issue because the feds rely on local law enforcement to make drug busts. A hidden issue is that, if marijuana is legalized, it would open the door to growing industrial hemp that would compete with many products now controlled by international corporations. They will fight that, of course, in the name of limiting street drugs. There is much more involved than legalization of Pot.]
WSJ 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
US: Congressmen and their staff members routinely engage in insider trading – and it’s legal for them, because they make the rules, while the rest of us would go to prison for the same activity.
DetNews Posted 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
Swan Lake Ballet like you have never seen it. Chinese Circus gives astounding performance.
YouTube 2008 Jun 13, posted 2010 Oct 16
US: Author, Tom Woods, delivers an excellent speech at the kickoff event of the ‘Nullify Now’ tour in Fort Worth. It is well worth the watch, because state nullification of federal laws is America’s best option for restoring the Republic.
YouTube Posted 2010 Sep 16
==============================
ANALYSIS
Reports and commentaries that look beyond the news to identify historical facts and trends that must be understood to place the news into perspective. This is our “think-tank” section that makes it possible to anticipate future events.
UN treaties and UN junk science are being used to de-industrialize America. In the U.S., the EPA has usurped authority, without consent of Congress, to implement a cap-and-trade scheme, and the Department of Energy is consolidating power grids to increase federal control over all energy delivery.
MorphCity 2010 Oct 19 (Cached)
Are they altering the human genetic code by means of synthetic chemicals added to the food chain to reduce global population? This researcher explains why he thinks so and that the plan includes re-engineering the human race into two distinct sub-species: intelligent rulers and docile workers. Whether you agree or not, you should be interested in the reasons for his conclusion.
Michael Nield Posted 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
US: An informative analysis of Bernanke’s latest speech. It’s all about money out of nothing and planned inflation.
Economic Collapse 2010 Oct 16 (Cached)
Here is a case study in media corruption. Attorney Richard Fine reveals how the Los Angeles Times has consistently protected and endorsed county judges who have been found guilty of taking illegal payments. The Times has never reported this fact. Fine has challenged the judges to a public debate.
Full Disclosure Network 2010 Oct 15
US relations with Pakistan are precarious because of the rising possibility that Islamic extremists could capture the government, which has full nuclear-weapon capability. [We are publishing this editorial because of the severity of the threat, but we caution our readers that the author feels the solution is to send more money to the Pakistani government and increase our military presence there. We believe that the primary reason we have such dangerous enemies is that we already have sent too much money to too many governments and have such a large military presence around the globe that it is perceived as a threat. Our best course is to stop intervening in the affairs of other nations, bring our troops home, maintain a strong military for defense only, and heal our economy so we once again can become good neighbors and trading partners.]
Personal Liberty 2010 Oct 13 (Cached)
This inspiring article compares being in the Liberty movement with the character played by Gary Cooper’s in “High Noon”. The parallels to today are powerful.
NeitherCorp.us 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
Tom Woods’ book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is analyzed. An audio interview with the author is included.
Pelican Institute Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
Related Posts:
Reality Zone Unfiltered News 2010 October 9-15
Saturday, October 16th, 2010 US: Fed Reserve Chairman Bernanke says he wants to increase inflation! – to help the economy, of course. The Fed already has pumped $1.7 trillion into the money supply and plans to add between $100 billion and $500 billion more. Meanwhile, the value of the Dollar continues to fall.
Yahoo 2010 Oct 15 (Cached)
UN meeting next week may debate a prohibition against geo-engineering (alteration of the Earth’s atmosphere and water allegedly to prevent a global climate catastrophe). [Since geo-engineering will be administered by the UN, it will give that body a huge influx of funding and political power. They will not reject this. We expect them to say there is need for further research and that they hope such measures will never have to be implemented, while at the same time quietly developing the program as rapidly as possible, regardless of harm to ecosystems, crops, wild life, and human health. For an understanding of this fraud, see What in the World Are They Spraying, available here.]
Science Insider 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
US Troops are being trained to replace local government in the event of social collapse, which the government anticipates.
Prison Planet 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
US is $1.2 billion in arrears to the UN. The US pays more than 25% of the general budget and military campaigns. [The US eventually will pay up, of course, because the UN is the facade for The New World Order, which the US government fully embraces. However, UN officials do not like having to wait for the money, which is the reason they are now putting in place numerous ways to directly tax the American people through bank fees and Internet transactions.]
Yahoo 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
US: Chelation therapies, used to remove heavy metals from the body and to open plugged arteries, are under attack from the FDA, which claims they may be dangerous and, worst of all, being sold without a prescription. [Some of these therapies are well known for their effectiveness. The danger is minimal compared to not using them or using FDA-approved drugs sold under prescription for the same purpose. Here, again, we see the FDA serving its master, the pharmaceutical industry.]
Washington Post 2010 Oct 15 (Cached)
US: Over 288,000 homes have been foreclosed in the last quarter, the highest number so far. Next quarter will see even more foreclosures but many are expected to be delayed due to legal challenges in which banks may not be able to document their legal claim to the loan. Either way, the home-mortgage market continues to tank. So far this year, over 900,000, or 1 in every 139 homeowners, have received foreclosure warnings.
Yahoo 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
After studying Egyptian mummies, which show no trace of cancer, scientists conclude that cancer is purely man-made due to pollution and inadequate diet. [We said that in the book, World without Cancer, published in 1974. It can be obtained here.]
Daily Mail 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
Malaysia is considering introducing genetically modified mosquitoes to combat dengue fever. No one knows what long-range impact this may have on the food chain, the balance of nature, or unforeseen negative impact on humans. [The reason for this drastic move? In the last 10 months there have been 117 death from dengue, which is almost statistically invisible compared to the whole population. Something smells fishy about this.
Yahoo 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
US: Department of Justice is conducting an investigation into dead animals in the Gulf, using scientists employed or contracted by the government, to determine whether the creatures died as a result of the oil spill. [Since the government already has shown a compulsion to protect BP, we expect the finding to be No.]
Yahoo 2010 Oct 14 (Cached)
UK: The BBC announces new policy to give global-warming skeptics equal coverage. This is the result of backlash from the public and an attempt by BBC to reclaim credibility. [It is one thing to announce a policy but another to implement it. We shall see.]
Telegraph 2010 Oct 13 (Cached)
US: Government proposes new rules to limit the derivative market that commonly is blamed for the current economic meltdown. [Commentators are ignoring the fact that the government failed to properly regulate this market using the rules it already has, so there is little basis to believe that this is nothing more than political posturing to please the voters. It will not change the cozy relationship between banks and regulators that still exists.]
Yahoo 2010 Oct 13 (Cached)
Toxic BPA is present in virtually all canned foods and beverages – and the levels are even higher than in plastic bottles. BPA has been linked to an increase in the risk of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
Natural News 2010 Oct 13 (Cached)
Get a Free Digital Subscription to Republic Magazine; Voice of the Patriot Movement
US: Natural gas is cheap and plentiful, pushing all other energy sources to the sidelines. [Low price is good, but natural gas commonly involves pumping toxic chemicals into the ground that get into the water supply, with harmful effects on human health. Environmental protection agencies remain silent on this issue, which suggests they have been bought off by the natural-gas industry.]
Yahoo 2010 Oct 13 (Cached)
Afghanistan: More than half the fields surrounding the main Australian military base are growing opium. Insurgents and government forces are both involved in the profitable trade.
The Age 2010 Oct 12 (Cached)
California sells 24 government buildings for $2.3 billion and will rent the property back at a cost of $5.2 billion over 20 years. [Obviously an act of desperation to cover current budget deficits, this trades cash now for even more debt in the future. No one is calling for a reduction in the size of government, just postponing the date of reckoning.]
CNBC 2010 Oct 12 (Cached)
US: Cities face a deficit in their pension funds of half-a-trillion dollars. State pension funds are $3 trillion in the hole. All eyes now are on Washington for federal bailouts. The cost of these will be passed to consumers in the form of even greater inflation. [Politicians at all levels are dealing death blows to the American economy.]
CNBC 2010 Oct 12 (Cached)
|
WORLD PREMIERE What in the World Are They Spraying! Documentary on chemtrails aka Geoengineering Saturday, Oct. 23, Atlanta, Georgia Producers G. Edward Griffin, Mike Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger will be present. Limited seating. |
New Hampshire: Government agents take baby from her mother hours after birth with allegations of abuse or neglect. The court order cites the father as a member of OathKeepers, an organization of military and police who have pledged not to follow orders if doing so would violate the Constitution. [The government described Oath Keepers as a militia, which it is not. Many believe this is an attempt to intimidate others from taking the pledge.]
WND 2010 Oct 11 (Cached)
Study finds that children who spend more than 2 hours a day in front of a TV or computer screen are more likely to suffer psychological problems, no matter how physically active they are.
Eureka Alert 2010 Oct 11 (Cached)
Two school districts in Texas are the first to embed RFID chips into student ID tags to allow administrators to monitor students at all times.
Houston Chronicle 2010 Oct 11 (Cached)
US: Home foreclosures increasingly are being challenged because of technical problems with documentation. Many mortgages have been bundled into derivative investments that are so complicated banks cannot prove they own them. That may allow mortgage holders to keep their homes, but they cannot claim clear title of ownership. Most of them don’t care as long as they are not evicted.
Economic Collapse 2010 Oct 11 (Cached)
New technology allows authorities to scan people’s ears as an ID method for clearance at airports.
Telegraph 2010 Oct 10 (Cached)
Google creates a robotic car that does not need humans to drive it.
NY Times 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
Ron Paul speaks at Tea Party about liquidating government debt by printing money, which he describes as criminal. He says the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is more powerful than the President because he creates money and determines interest rates. He advocates getting rid of the IRS and the income tax in addition to cutting government back to its Constitutional size and using the 10th Amendment to nullify bad federal laws. [Ear candy!]
YouTube 2010 Oct 11
US: College student finds a tracking device attached to his car, and the FBI demands its return after the student posted pictures of the device on the Internet. Currently, it is legal for the FBI to track people without a warrant.
Wired Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
US: ObamaCare levies a 3.8% tax on investment income, including gains on the sale of homes. At this time, it applies only to income that exceeds a capital-gains threshold, so only high-income taxpayers are affected. [Before breathing a sigh of relief, recall that the national income tax was sold in 1913 as a tax on the rich but later was applied to everyone, while the super-rich were given loopholes to escape it. Expect the same pattern here.]
EREB Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
Prominent scientist at the University of California resigns from the American Physical Society because of the global warming myth, which he describes as “a fraud on a scale of which I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity.”
WattsUpWithThat Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
Bee die-off, or Colony Collapse Disorder made headlines last week when University of Montana and Army researchers attributed the phenomenon to a fungus and a virus instead of pesticides, as suggested by previous research. The plot thickened when it was learned that the lead researcher received a grant from Bayer pharmaceutical, a pesticide manufacturer.
NY Mag Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
The myth of global warming and the bugaboo of “climate change” is being used to sell the concept of genetically modified seeds that will be drought resistant and heat tolerant. [It's part of a sophisticated and well funded program to justify GMO crops that will make farmers dependent on patented seeds.]
Telegraph Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
US: Democrats are accused of planting a counterfeit Tea Party candidate in New Jersey Congressional race, and the evidence is convincing. [Keep your eyes open for candidates from either major party who claim to support the Constitution but who vote the opposite.]
Yahoo Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
US: Southern Poverty Law Center is a political group that demonizes those who praise the Constitution, oppose world government, or are concerned about illegal immigration. It now is officially part of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council.
OathKeepers Posted 2010 Oct 9 (Cached)
==============================
ANALYSIS
Reports and commentaries that look beyond the news to identify historical facts and trends that must be understood to place the news into perspective. This is our “think-tank” section that makes it possible to anticipate future events.
This inspiring article compares being in the Liberty movement with the character played by Gary Cooper’s in “High Noon”. The parallels to today are powerful.
NeitherCorp.us 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
Tom Woods’ book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is analyzed. An audio interview with the author is included.
Pelican Institute Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
Related Posts:
Reality Zone Unfiltered News 2010 October 2-8
Saturday, October 9th, 2010 Global hurricane activity is now at a 33-year low. This flies in the face of the claims by global-warming mythmakers who have said the Earth is threatened by an increase in hurricanes and other forms of “climate disruption.” [Don't worry. They simply will revise their story and say that the drop in hurricane activity is proof of global warming. You can count on that.]
WattsUpWithThat 2010 Oct 8 (Cached)
US: Federal judge rules that Obama’s health-care provision that makes it mandatory for individuals to buy health insurance is Constitutional. This ruling will be appealed. [Do not expect federal courts to stop the expanding power of the federal government. The only realistic way to do that now is for the states to exercise their 10th Amendment power of Nullification.]
Cardiovascular News 2010 Oct 8 (Cached)
Chinese dissident who now is in prison for criticizing China’s government wins the Nobel Peace Prize, despite warnings from the Chinese government to the Nobel jury that this would undermine peace. [The Nobel jury awarded the Peace Prize to Obama last year, so it is difficult to understand the criteria used in making its selection.]
Guardian 2010 Oct 8 (Cached)
Children are encouraged to spy, photograph, and report on people while patrolling their neighborhoods in a so-called “crime prevention” game. Here is the Internet message: “Want to earn tons of cool badges and prizes while competing with your friends to see who can be the best American? Download the SnapScouts app for your Android phone and get started patrolling your neighborhood.”
SnapScouts posted 2010 Oct 7 (Cached)
California Air Resources Board admits it overestimated diesel pollution by a whopping 340%. That calculation was the basis for a 2007 law that eliminated the use of 150,000 diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles used in construction and commerce – adding greatly to the economic handicap that pushed California into an epic depression. [The people responsible for this mistake (Surely, they wouldn't do that on purpose, would they?) have not been called to task and continue employment with the state.]
CO2 Insanity 2010 Oct 7 (Cached)
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is brought to court for refusing to release evidence that would show if data from US satellites was altered to support the theory of global warming. [Would the agency refuse to show its data if it had nothing to hide? We'll go out on a limb and predict that it will claim the data is classified for national security reasons.]
CFP 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
Gulf resident and reporter Kindra Arneson discusses her medical condition related to the oil spill and subsequent chemical treatment. She says they still are spraying chemicals in the Gulf. [This may not be news, but her personal story gives us a front-row seat for what is happening there yet not reported in the major media.]
Examiner 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
US: DC election officials invited hackers to test their electronic vote machines. Within 36 hours, the hackers were able to change votes, read secret ballots, discover passwords, and put in a back door to control the machines in the future. [The only safe voting system is the hand-counted paper ballot.]
The Brad Blog 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
UK: Health Chief says smoking should be banned in homes and cars to protect children. [How about banning GMO foods, chemtrails, or fluoridated water, all of which are more toxic than cigarette smoke? Collectivists are not interested in banning these because that would not justify intrusion into our private lives.]
Daily Mail 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
US: Pentagon and Homeland Security ramp up cyber security that will give government total control over water systems, power grids and financial networks, and the Internet – to protect us against terrorist attacks, of course. The “Stuxnet” computer worm is cited as the excuse. More than 40 cyber security bills are pending in Congress. International “cooperation” and dependence is suggested in addition to more presidential power.
Reuters 2010 Oct. 5 (Cached)
IMF says that banks across Europe and the US are facing a $4 trillion deficit, and this shortfall will prevent an economic recovery. The solution, it says, is to expand the money supply and force taxpayers to bail out the banks once again. [The expansion of the money supply caused by the creation of money from nothing is what caused the problem in the first place, so their so-called cure will merely drive the economy deeper into the pit.]
Telegraph 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
US: Super-size salaries and benefits for government workers is not limited to Bell, California. Here are many additional examples –proof of how wide and deep the corruption really is.
MSNBC 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
|
WORLD PREMIERE What in the World Are They Spraying! Documentary on chemtrails aka Geoengineering Saturday, Oct. 23, Atlanta, Georgia Producers G. Edward Griffin, Mike Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger will be present. Limited seating. |
US: Government now is the main employer of college grads. [America's future leaders will be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.]
Innovation & Growth 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
October 10 is “No-GMO Day” across the US. Organic food producers have formed a coalition to label foods that are GMO-free, because the FDA refuses to label foods that are GMOs. [Be aware, for example, that half of the candy for Halloween this year is made with GMO sugar. Without labeling, you will not know which is which.]
Food Freedom 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
Bank of Japan announces it will expand the money supply by creating money out of nothing to buy a broad range of financial instruments, including corporate bonds, ETFs, and real estate investment trusts. Savvy investors understood the inflationary consequences of this, dumped their holdings denominated in government currency, and bought gold, causing a sharp escalation in gold price. [Expect to see this scenario repeated all over the world, including the US.]
Business Insider 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
Swiss study finds that using a laptop on your lap for extended periods can cause skin burns, affects sperm production in men, and even cause skin cancer.
NaturalNews 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
US: While government officials and media pundits are saying that the economy is recovering and that the stock market is about to rally, Wall Street insider investors are selling their stocks at a ratio of 2,341 for every 1 share they are buying. [Any questions?]
ZeroHedge 2010 Oct 5 (Cached)
Scientists lose their jobs after reporting that genetically modified food purchased in supermarkets causes illness and death in lab animals.
Mercola 2010 Oct 4 (Cached)
Brazil elects a real clown, who is illiterate, to Congress by a landslide. His only campaign promise was to report to the people how politicians spend their time. [We are tempted to approve of this almost humorous event, but the sad fact is that this candidate was funded by the Worker's Party in anticipation of using his popularity to bring hard-core left-wingers into office. It's another example of the futility of voting against the establishment without paying attention to what will replace it.]
Yahoo 2010 Oct 4 (Cached)
US: Soldiers are exposed to Depleted Uranium from exploded artillery shells. When inhaled, tiny particles travel to the brain and kill brain cells, leading to bizarre mental conditions, cancer, and death.
Veterans Today2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
US: Massive inflation is now unavoidable as commodity prices are surging at double-digit rates. These inevitably must be passed to the consumer. In 2011, expect to spend lots more for basic needs like food and fuel.
The Economic Collapse 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
US: The nation’s credit-union system is “rescued” by the federal government with $30 billion in government-guaranteed bonds. [But don't worry. The media tells us the majority of credit unions are sound, and officials assure us that this rescue will not cost anything to taxpayers.]
WSJ Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
US: Who says Communism is dead? This video of a huge demonstration in Washington, DC, shows that it is alive and strong.
YouTube 2010 Oct 2
US: Arizona State University researcher has developed a remote-controlled helmet that modulates pain. His projected market is the military which could use it to discipline soldiers and others required to wear it.
PoorRichard’s Blog Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
Iceland: Politicians forced to flee from 2000 protestors angry over failing economy and austerity measures imposed by IMF. [When welfare recipients become angry over loss of "benefits," welfare states become police states to contain the violence that always follows.]
Guardian Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
US: Prison population has quadrupled since 1980, and one in 28 American children has a parent behind bars.
Raw Story Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
Global warming alarmists make a 10-minute movie intended to get people to cut carbon emissions, but it backfires because it is so violent and gruesome. It reveals the ugly mindset of those who cannot tolerate dissent on this issue.
YouTube Posted 2010 Oct 2
US: Meat tainted with deadly MRSA bacteria is being sold to consumers. It is coming from factory farms that feed antibiotics to livestock. MRSA is antibiotic resistant.
Wallet Pop Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
US: November elections will unseat many members of Congress, but as they complete their terms into January, they have radical bills stacked up for passage that include laws that will confiscate private property, federalize water resources, and control food products.
Canada Free Press Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
==============================
ANALYSIS
Reports and commentaries that look beyond the news to identify historical facts and trends that must be understood to place the news into perspective. This is our “think-tank” section that makes it possible to anticipate future events.
This inspiring article compares being in the Liberty movement with the character played by Gary Cooper’s in “High Noon”. The parallels to today are powerful.
NeitherCorp.us 2010 Oct 6 (Cached)
IMF Director says that the G-20 now is the center of power in the world and is the foundation for The New World Order. [The international banking cartel is the real power base beneath the UN, which is merely its political front.]
Speigel 2010 Oct 4 (Cached)
Tom Woods’ book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is analyzed. An audio interview with the author is included.
Pelican Institute Posted 2010 Oct 2 (Cached)
“Silver Shines!” G. Edward Griffin discusses the monetary system with Idaho State Representative Phil Hart who has written legislation to introduce silver into the free market as a medium of exchange.
MorphCity.com 2010 Sep 28
Good advice for packing a Bug-Out Bag in case of emergency – and much more.
NeitherCorp.us 2010 Sep 22 (Cached)
US: 9/11 remains shrouded with unanswered questions. Here is newly obtained evidence that there were explosions and deaths in WTC Building 7 before either of the Twin Towers collapsed. [That means the damage that brought down Building 7 was not from the collapse of the twins, which is the official version.]
IntelHub 2010 Sep 14 (Cached)
Related Posts:
Common Sense Revisited
Thursday, July 29th, 2010Related Posts:
Quotes on Government
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010“Whensoever the federal government assumes unconstitutional powers, a “nullification of the act is THE rightful remedy”.”
Thomas Jefferson
“A government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have…The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”
John Locke
“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers… ‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”
Friedrich August von Hayek
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority…There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Noah Webster
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
Lord Acton
“We need a revolution every 20 years just to keep government honest.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Samuel Adams
