You Have No Rights

UPDATE, JULY 5: INFOWARS ARTICLE PROVES VIOLATION OF 3RD AMENDMENT BRINGING TOTAL TO ZERO (0) OUT OF 10 AMENDMENTS STILL IN TACT! Read it for yourself here: Nevada Police face rare Third Amendment lawsuit for Force Comandeering Homes

This Fourth of July, I have decided to honor the Founding Fathers by explaining to American citizens the true nature of the “rights” they celebrate on Independence Day.

When our country was founded and the Constitution written, our forefathers understood that Rights are inherent in all mankind – they come from God, and not government. They understood that they represented all American citizens in crafting offices to be filled by other citizens, and establishing guidelines by which these citizens must abide. Having just turned their backs on a king, and with a full understanding of the power-greedy nature of mankind, they understood that the citizens of this country were setting themselves apart from all others by limiting their representatives with those guidelines – specifically outlining what they could and could not do!

The Constitution is that summary document, laying out those guidelines and limiting those representatives.  In discussing the duties and powers of Congress, Article 1, Section 1, says “All legislative powers herein granted…” Notice that word, granted. As in “We, the people, do hereby grant you the following duties and powers.” The power originates in the people, and is granted to the representatives in government. It is important to note that the power never leaves the people, authority is just given to a few citizens to do specific things on behalf of all the other citizens.

The states were formed by mutual agreements among citizens, and the Constitution was a contract between the states establishing a body of citizens who would be responsible for things that the states could not do individually, namely to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the defense of the boundaries that the states shared. Today, Americans have been led to believe that the federal government has more authority than state governments, but this is untrue. The ultimate authority lies with the people, themselves.

The feds, on the other hand – those citizens (ostensibly) who have been chosen to fulfill certain duties within specific guidelines – now act as though they have the power and authority to do anything they want, whenever and however they want. This is the exact behavior that lead the Founding Fathers, and every other freedom-loving American, to split with the king of England. His soldiers were allowed to enter homes unannounced, demand compliance from subjects, incarcerate them indefinitely and without due legal process, steal or destroy property, and kill or abuse the people. Welcome to today.

In the remainder of this document, it will be shown that the most important Rights, belonging to all American citizens, have been taken away from us by the government. But: who can remove Rights that have been bestowed by our Creator? How can a government remove Rights from the citizens, when the citizens created the government in the first place – the very citizens from whom the government (office-holding citizens) derive their authority?

In very fact, they cannot take our Rights from us. Just as today’s dollar only holds value because people believe it does, even so our government representatives only hold power as long as WE THE PEOPLE allow them to continue. Your Rights can never be rightfully removed; they come from God. The government can only use coercion to remove your ability to exercise those Rights. It is time to take a stand.

The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers can be clearly discerned from their other writings outside of the Constitution itself. You are encouraged to study the original writings of the Founding Fathers so that you may learn these things firsthand, and be freed from the revisionist propaganda history that has been taught in America’s public education system for the last several decades.


The Freedoms We Celebrate

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…all men are…
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

“Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator as the source of the unalienable rights that governments are formed to secure. This acknowledgement was the very foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In other words,  rights come from GOD and the United States government was created to protect those rights. How well is the government doing in securing the God-given rights of American citizens? Let’s find out.

Some of our God-given rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. It is interesting to note that a few of the Founding Fathers objected to a Bill of Rights because government representatives ONLY have the rights specifically given to them by the people, in the Constitution, and therefore a list was not necessary. This sentiment is reflected in the 10th Amendment, which says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Below are Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, as well as laws established in the Constitution itself, followed by a brief investigation into the current status of these Rights and laws.


1st Amendment

Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press; the Right to Assemble and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of Religion.

Original Intent: The government was not to interfere with people’s religious practices, nor were they to institute an official religion.

Currently: Bible studies are being shut down both in homes and in college dorms; religious groups are being forced to either shut down or allow practices that violate their beliefs; and the false doctrine of “separation of church and state” is being used to remove anything religious from the public square. In recent years, the Federal government has prohibited the free exercise of religion by forcing Christian organizations to participate in violations of their belief, including accepting gays as club members, and to provide gay adoptions and abortion/contraception funding. The Feds have also defunded youth programs that mention God, among many other things.


Freedom of Speech.

Original Intent: America was founded on the belief that all mankind are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, and that they have the right to share them, especially when their positions are unpopular.

Currently: Freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged in several ways, including the prosecution of government whistleblowers, and the illegal surveillance of all phone calls, text messages, and emails in America. Citizens can no longer peacably assemble and petition the government because they “approved a bill… that outlaws protests or civilian intrusions in any area where government officials are nearby,” whether they realize it or not, and created oxymoronic “free speech zones” that limit where and when protests may occur, as well as whether or not they will be heard. Interestingly, Communist China did the same thing during the 2008 Olympics. In recent years, police violence against peaceful protesters has become commonplace. It should also be noted the current monitoring of every American’s emails, phone calls, text messages, etc., are a sure way to curtail free speech, since the stated purpose is to store the data of innocent people until such future time as it might be deemed necessary to go back and find incriminating communications. See also supposedly defunct federal Information Awareness Office, and its goal of “Total Information Awareness.”


Freedom of Press

Original Intent: Freedom of the Press goes hand-in-hand with Freedom of Speech. Americans have a right to hear and be heard. Originally, the press was run by the people, and they used it to keep a close eye on their representatives.

Currently: Today, the media is owned by the globalist elite and their message is tightly controlled by the government. When the government controls the media, they control the message; when the government controls the message, it is called Propaganda. In 1991, David Rockefeller thanked the largest media outlets in the world for keeping their promise and remaining silent for decades about the globalist Bilderberg group. The press has become nothing but a dispensary for “preferred government messaging.”


The Right to Assemble

Original Intent: This was always to give people the ability to express their views and exercise their Freedom of Speech, as discussed above. Whenever governments want to control the ability of the populace to spread popular opinions – such as freedom – they limit the Right of the people to assemble. This is the practice currently in all Communist regimes, and some Socialist regimes.

Currently: In order to exercise this Right one must first obtain a permit. One legal website says, “…an unlawful assembly is a gathering of at least three persons whose conduct causes observers to reasonably fear that a breach of the peace will result. Although freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, law enforcement has the right to require disbursement of such an assembly as part of the “police powers” of the state. Determination of the potential dangers of riot or breach of peace are subjective and decided on the spot by police officers or other public officials.” In other words, no one may assemble without the permission of the government. A “subjective” law is no law at all. In other news, most Americans are unaware that the FBI had plans to murder the people they saw as leaders of the peaceful Occupy Wall Street protests, apparently because they “planned similar protests” in other cities. Recently, several conservative groups testified in court over discriminatory treatment by the IRS, including one Susan Martinek, who testified that, “an IRS agent told her in June 2009 that she needed to send a letter with her entire board’s signatures “stating under penalty of perjury we would not picket, protest or organize groups to picket, protest outside of Planned Parenthood.”” Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that no one can exercise their 1st Amendment Rights within the Supreme Court building and grounds.


The Right to Petition

Original Intent: This Right ensures that any citizen with a grievance has the ability to be heard by his representatives.

Currently: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners in the Prop 8 case had “no standing” to present their argument in front of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that their representatives who were legally required to do so had refused.


2nd Amendment

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

Original Intent: Having just shrugged off one tyrant – the king of England – and knowing the power-hungry hearts of men, the citizens of America knew that the only way they could continue to remain free from tyrants was to remain armed.

Currently: According to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, infringed means broken or violated. Every chance they get, our representatives in Washington (particularly the Pres. and VP) speak out against the right to bear arms, and Washington has pushed gun control measures. Alternative means have been sought to curtail gun use, including mass ammunition purchases, reclassification of weapons, mandatory recycling of empty shell casings, and selling guns to gangs so they will kill Americans so it can be blamed on guns. Obama even signed a U.N. treaty that will give the decidedly anti-gun organization control over all civilian arms. Today, the Dept. of Homeland Security treats gun owners as terrorists, and has even worked with local officials to monitor people with Second Amendment bumper stickers on their vehicles. In fact, the current Attorney General, Eric Holder, is on video stating that the American people must be “brainwashed” into thinking about guns as nothing but a violent threat to society. Federal and state troops removed legal weapons – at gunpoint – from law-abiding citizens during Hurricane Katrina and the recent Boston bombing. So, has our God-given right to bear arms, given to us for the purpose of protecting our life, liberty, and property, been violated? When we are entirely unarmed, will we have the means to fend off any government that decides to compel us into tyranny? Many believe we are already there. Ironically, resistance to gun confiscation was a tipping point in the beginning of the American Revolution. The federal government is complicit in the systematic destruction of our 2nd Amendment Rights!


3rd Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Original Intent: King George’s men could barge right into your home and stay there for as long as they wished, demanding that you feed them, etc. The Founding Fathers knew that this violated the God-given Right to freedom of property.

Currently: Still in effect., as far as I know. +1 for the government!


4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Original Intent: Here, the Constitution very clearly spells out the method by which the government may search, or seize, a person or their property. This was an important protection because the king’s men could arrest a person, or seize their property, for any reason.

Currently: Today, the goverment has created the NSA and given them the freedom to record and search every method of communication available, as well as the TSA, which invasively searches everyone bold enough to suggest they should be allowed to travel on an airplane. Or bus. Or subway. Or attend a sports game or other public event. Or use a highway. The PATRIOT Act and NDAA bills both allow for the arrest (“siezure”) and indefinite confinement of American citizens, without warrant OR proof of probable cause. It has also been discovered that the government has a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT Act for their own use. PATRIOT Act II allows for secret, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, repealed “limits on local police spying on religious and political activity” (IRS scandal, anyone?), expanded wiretapping, and allowed for “individuals engaged in civil disobedience” to “risk losing their citizenship.” These bills also allow for detention of American citizens without a trial. Feel secure yet?


5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Original Intent: “Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value.” (Cornell Legal Information Institute, Fifth Amendment, Accessed July 3, 2013)

Currently: The Obama administration claims the right to kill anyone they deem a threat, including American citizens, without due process of law, including the Right to have a grand jury determine if a crime has been committed that is worthy of capital punishment, and the Right to a fair trial. “The guarantee of due process for all citizens requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding.” (Cornell Legal Information Institute) One of the most well-known provisions of the Fifth Amendment is the “right to remain silent,” so as not to incriminate oneself. However, recently the Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, you do NOT have the right not to incriminate yourself unless you specifically claim that right, and that “If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.” How’s that for twisting the words and intent of the Constitution? We have a God-given Right, enshrined in the Constitution specifically to let the government know that they cannot revoke that Right, but now we have to play word games to use it. It is also apparently now against the law for teachers to inform their students of their Fifth Amendment Right not to incriminate themselves, as one teacher recently learned. As for seizing private property, it appears that some government agents are not paying just compensation for property seized. But who’s going to do anything about it? “Who’s watching the watchers?”


6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Original Intent: To protect citizens from trumped up charges, especially brought about by the government’s agents. Prior to the American Revolution, the king’s agents could do (and did) exactly that.

Currently: These Rights have been negated by the aforementioned USA PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. You may now be detained, indefinitely, without being told what you are being held for, and without anyone else being notified of your whereabouts.


7th Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Original Intent: This, again, is a protection against tyranny at the hands of the government (i.e., the courts). The true decisions in court cases rest in the hands of the jury, not the judge!

Currently: The Obama administration has concocted themselves a secret court whose job it is to determine who may be killed by drone strikes, completely circumventing – or negating – the Sixth Amendment.


8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Original Intent: A common practice of tyrants is to impose excessive fines and punishment. The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid this by declaring that all men have a God-given Right to be treated with respect, even when found guilty of crimes. Notice that the severity of the crime is not mentioned as a factor in the protections afforded all citizens by the 8th Amendment.

Currently: Today, the United States inflicts torture on “detainees” around the world., and citizens are commonly held under enormous bail so that they cannot escape imprisonment. Ironically, yet again, this is the exact same behavior seen in Communist regimes the world over. “…an exposé by the Christian Science Monitor found that about 750,000 people are in local jails on any given day in the U.S…. about 80% have no choice but to remain in their cells due to their inability to pay the cost of making bail.” Today, excessive fines are regularly imposed, including one half-million-dollar bail for a teenager accused of offensive comments on Facebook!


9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Original Intent: These last two amendments in the Bill of Rights, as discussed earlier, further instill the intent of the Founding Fathers that it be understood that the Bill of Rights was never meant to be a list of the only Rights that the people have! It is just a discussion of specific ones they felt it was important to address. Anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution was either delegated to the states by the people, in their state constitutions, or it belongs to the people!

Currently: Today, all forms of government, be they federal, state, or city, overreach their Constitutional limits on a regular basis. Many of the ways that they do this have been addressed in the sections on the other amendments above, but there are many others. Our cities are being molded according to designs fabricated by the United Nations Agenda 21 Initiative, without the knowledge or permission of the citizenry! The police are giving citizens roadside cavity searches during traffic stops! Our land is being sold to the Chinese! And on and on! WAKE UP!


Final Thoughts

While I had intended to continue my observations by investigating the state of other Constitutional laws not contained in the Bill of Rights, I think I have made my point: according to the government, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! (Well, 1 out of 10. Is that good?) But the question is this: Do you believe it? Do your Rights come from God or from the government? If they come from God, what are you going to do about it? Here are some quotes to think about as you light sparklers tonight with your kids:

Now we can really understand Constitutional precedents. When the Federal government takes on functions not spelled out in the Constitution, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, it is only a matter of time before it will damage the unenumerated rights of the people, in violation of the Ninth Amendment. When the government can violate the unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights of the people, it is only a matter of time before it will trample the enumerated rights of the people, as explicitly spelled out in the rest of the Bill of Rights. After the government has gotten away with restricting speech and firearms when it has a “compelling interest,” it will begin finding ways to search and seize property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. After each protection of the Bill of Rights has been eroded around the edges long enough, the government will pursue degradation of the most basic of statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial – until the Bill of Rights is completely meaningless.

Americans are coming dangerously close to having no rights left at all, except for the few the government spares us. We must turn this around soon, and with the right destination in mind, or we will wake up one day in a dictatorship.

                                                       –Are Current Bill of Rights Erosions Unprecedented? by Anthony Gregory

                                                         (Lew Rockwell, Mar. 2, 2004)

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

                                                                             –Adolf Hitler

“Our form of government is superior to all others, inasmuch as it provides, in a fair and honorable manner for its own amendment. But it requires no gift or prophecy to foresee that this privilege may be seized on by demagogues, to introduce wild and destructive innovations. Under the gentle name of amendments, changes may be proposed which, if unresisted, will undermine the national compact, mar its fairest features, and reduce it finally to a dead letter. It abates nothing of the danger to say that alterations may be trifling and inconsiderable. If the Constitution be picked away by piecemeal, it is gone — and gone as effectually as if some military despot had grasped it at once, trampled it beneath his feet, and scattered its loose leaves in the wild winds.”

If we are to keep faith with our Constitution, we must know it. Since it is the basis of our American way of life and our liberties every American should be familiar with it. We should read it periodically.

How can people who are ignorant of the principles and guarantees of American government stand up in defense of it and our rights under the Constitution? The fundamentals and processes of free government should be known to every school boy — and his parents. No free people can ever survive if they are ignorant of and fail to understand the principles of free government!

                                                        -Ezra Taft Benson, The Red Carpet 201-02

Don’t believe it can happen in America? Consider what happened to the Japanese during WWII: Summary of Constitutional Rights Violated (From: A Lesson in American History: The Japanese American Experience, Curriculum and Resource Guide) (PDF. JACL, Accessed, July 3, 2013)


Breaking Down the Hedge (#7)

I understand that many of the topics that I report on are considered “fringe” or “conspiracy theory” by many people. Trouble is… the sheer amount of documentation available to support these allegations leads one to believe that there must be more than just “theory” here. I urge you to do your own personal research on the topics addressed here.

Also, I am starting a new job soon, and my time will be extremely limited. Therefore, I am going to switch to a new “link dump” style of reporting the news and current events. That means that you will have to do your own research, and/or ask questions if you want to connect the dots, and understand why these things are important. Feel free to leave comments or questions in the Comments Section below!

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 is a method whereby the globalist elite are gaining power by taking control of the world’s resources, and the authority to govern those resources, despite personal and national sovereignty. If you have to pay a tax to an international body, and they have the military means to enforce their mandates, that international body is a world government.

Obama Floats Carbon Tax Day After Election Victory

Koozzoo Media exposes the the corrupt practice of “carbonising land”

Media Panic to Control Exposure of Agenda 21 Takeover

Agenda 21 Timeline

Gardener Fights Against Agenda 21 and Wins

Globalist Plan to Downsize Americans into Jail Cell Like Homes

Population Reduction

The Georgia Guidestones proclaim that the earth’s population must be reduced to 500 million from its current 7 billion-plus. Pay attention when you see articles like these. Notice, especially, when there is an economic benefit to taking life, as in the article about euthanasia below, as this is Satan’s most effective tool, and has been since the beginning: “And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain.” (Moses 5:31)

Warning: Anti-Depressants Causing Birth Defects, Miscarriages

British Hospitals Make Millions Euthanizing Patients

GMO babies now being engineered in labs under guise of preventing incurable disease

Is China about to scrap its one-child policy? Government think tank urges leaders to allow two children per family by 2015

Teenage Girls Secretly Given Contraceptive Implants and Injections in U.K. Schools


Articles like this one prove that conspiracies are real. The ones you need to worry about take place on a much larger scale, but most people tend to not realize a conspiracy if/when they hear about it on the news, so here is just one example.

Former GE execs get prison terms in bid-rigging case


This first story dovetails with the Population Reduction section. The rest should give you an idea of how concerned any parent should be about putting their children into the public education system.

‘Plan B’ in NYC Schools

ADHD Drugs Prescribed to ‘All Academically Struggling’ Children


Like ObamaCare, Obama Core Is Another Power Grab

What is Mix It Up at Lunch Day?

Federal Student Aid and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Obama: Put Teachers on Federal Payroll

Schools to Dispense Discipline Based on Race, Not Merely Behavior

T’is the Season

Black Friday Secrets Revealed

Proof Black Friday Is A Huge Scam!

Head’s up! If you are a parent, next week’s BDH may be the most important newsletter you ever read! Don’t miss it!

Breaking Down the Hedge (#6)

New World Order

It is surprising to me that so many Americans are still ignorant to the reality of the New World Order. If you are a Mormon and disbelieve, shame on you. I highly recommend several books that will open your eyes to the reality of our “awful situation” in The Reading Room.

1. Council on Foreign Relations (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.


Given that so many power-wielding individuals are members of this organization, it is important that Americans understand what its objectives are: the end of sovereignty and so-called “isolationism”, and the promotion and implementation of a one-world government.

My Take:

The article opens with a quote from a man named Gary Allen:

Although the formal membership in the [Council on Foreign Relations] is composed of close to 1500 of the most elite names in the worlds of government, labor, business, finance, communications, the foundations, and the academy — and despite the fact that it has staffed almost every key position of every administration since those of FDR — it is doubtful that one American in a thousand so much as recognizes the Council’s name, or that one in ten thousand can relate anything at all about its structure or purpose.

The CFR can get away with their devious acts only because their acts are in relative darkness. Connor does an excellent job of exposing who the CFR really are and what they do.


My Take:

I mentioned above that the CFR can get away with things because their acts are in “relative darkness.” What this means is that they can do things in the open so long as the public has no idea what they are doing, and why it is wrong. The “Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces” that this guy discusses are unConstitutional, and they are what has directly lead us to Federal control of nearly every level of our lives. “Policemen” are supposed to be people from the local area so that they will have the best interest of the people in mind. When Federal forces get involved, they use the force of arms to enforce the Federal government. These things do not happen by accident, and when people ignore the warnings of those who see what is going on, we all suffer the loss of our freedoms.


3. Just what is the New World Order?

The “New World Order” is a government that has complete control of the entire world. This is the name that was given to it by the globalists themselves. You can see video clips on YouTube of globalists using this phrase:

Notice the mention by Bush #1 of the New World Order being headed up by the United Nations (UN). The original attempt at forming a world government was known as the League of Nations. When this was shunned by Americans, World War II was fomented in order to cause people to clamor for world peace which could supposedly only be made possible by a world government. After WWII, the United Nations was formed for this purpose. Since then, it has only grown in strength and usurped control over the nations of the Earth, removing from them their sovereignty. The following recent article makes this clear:

U.N. could tax U.S.-based Web sites, leaked docs show (cnet news)

Here, we are informed that somehow the United Nations could have the authority to tax United States citizens, over whom they have no governmental authority. We would do well to ask ourselves what the purpose of taxes is, and who has the right to request that we do so. Allowing the United Nations the authority to tax is tantamount to consenting to have them as our government.


4. US Government’s Secret Army: Foreign Troops to be Deployed After Martial Law is Declared (Occupy Corporatism)

Read the article here.


Of late, reports and rumors about foreign troops in America working with our armed forces have been surfacing. And in response, the US government has (at first) dismissed the claims. Now, official reports are confirming what eye witnesses have been seeing.

The question is: why are foreign troops training with US military forces for urban warfare, civil unrest and disturbance?

Scheduled for September 12th through the 16th, the Canadian military will be training for domestic operations in locking down urban populations. The supposition is that a massive revolt could break out as global civilian revolution is believed to be imminent.

Foreign troops have been working with US Armed Forces and law enforcement for years in preparation for civil unrest in America. Back in 2010 in Chicago, under Operation Vigilant Guard (OVG), where Polish Armed Forces not only “observed” urban warfare drills, but also participated in exercises specializing in detaining Americans during counter-terror drills. According to one Polish major, the exercises were “the next step” in combining both the Illinois National Guard and Polish military personnel in a psy-op campaign to acclimate Americans to seeing foreign troops in the domestic US and gain acceptance for these soldiers assisting local law enforcement in everyday duties.

In Colorado, rumors of Russian troops practicing to deal with terrorist raids and martial law scenarios have been proven correct by our US Armed Forces…

In Oregon, under OVG, NORTHCOM and NORAD joined with the Oregon National Guard and the Portland Police Bureau to train to disarm Americans. This drill included armed soldiers from Bangladesh in connection with the National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership Program which forages partnerships with American and foreign troops.

Both Russian and American airborne troops held training exercises that included tactical landing operations with specialized focus on “parachuting, operation planning, reconnaissance, assault operations and evacuations by helicopter.”

Back in May, mainstream media reported that Russian army paratroopers were in Colorado training with the 10th US Special Forces Group at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, Colorado…

Lt. Col. Steven Osterholzer confirmed that Russian and American soldiers were conducting anti-terrorism exercises, including firing weapons and practicing parachute drops.

The Air Force Reserve Command has requested that Congress authorize US armed forces to be used against Americans as a newly formed response team for domestic disturbances.

The Obama administration, during high-level talks with US Marine Corp officials, ordered war games exercises to train US troops in tactical operations for the known purpose of continuity of government and territorial sovereignty. The location of the exercises “is irrelevant”, according to Ensign Bryan Mitchell, spokesman for the U.S. Marines Corp. The planned training “happens to be in Palawan” [Ed. note: in the Philippines]; however the focus on anti-terrorism was designed to ready troops for all possibilities in combat situations.

Most recently, NORAD have been working with Canadian and Russian Air Forces at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colorado for training in aerial assault scenarios

My Take:

Notice what the Polish major said: Americans are being acclimated “to seeing foreign troops in the domestic US” so we won’t have a problem with them“assisting local law enforcement in everyday duties.” Now, honestly, I DO have a problem with that! These military forces have no authority over Americans, to begin with. And secondly, no population should ever be policed by anyone but themselves because this lessens the possibility of abuse. Which, of course, is why they want our troops in foreign lands, and foreign troops in our lands: they can get everyone to commit atrocities against “others” that they would never consider committing against their own.


5. Globalists Plan to Nuke America Revealed (InfoWars / YouTube)

My Take:

This is an excellent nearly two-hour-long  interview with political analyst Joel Skousen. I don’t agree with everything he says, but then again he may be right on those things. Nevertheless, this information is vital. The globalists have a specific plan to destroy, and you can be prepared! But, only once you know what their plan is. Pay attention to his mention of, among other things, the “phony Muslim Brotherhood threat,” Glenn Beck, and how they are being used to further globalism. Notice also how the US has assisted the Russian in their ruse of pretending to disarm while secretly amassing nuclear arms. And much more!


6. Decoding the Georgia Guidestones (Van’s Hardware Journal)

Read the article here.


1.Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2.Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3.Unite humanity with a living new language.
4.Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5.Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6.Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7.Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8.Balance personal rights with social duties.
9.Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
…But in fact, a more apt description of the Georgia Guidestones really is “humanity’s tombstone.” The fact is Robert Christian [the man behind the Guidestones] wants most of us dead and those few left won’t be treated like humans.

My Take:

Someone secretly had the large granite blocks put up as a monument to their view of the future. A close reading will show a few things: a) the things on the list represent a form of world government, and b) they are identical with the goals of the United Nations. I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety, as this is something most people know nothing about. This leads us to our subjects for next week: Population Reduction (#1), Eugenics (#2), and Environmentalism (#10). See you then!

A Book, A Book, A Book!


My good friend, D. Christian Markham, has just published – today! – a new book, entitled “There Are Save Two Churches Only, Volume I“. It is 534 pages long. I assisted in the proofreading, editing, and research of this book. I also created and maintain a website for it:


This is an amazing book. What else can I say? You will learn things that you never even suspected.


This is the information from the rear cover of the book:
—- start —-

“And [the angel] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil… the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.”
— 1 Nephi 14:9-10

There Are Save Two Churches Only

A critical exposé of ancient and modern deceptions, hidden agendas, and overlooked truths. Prepared for the thoughtful reader who is willing to follow the admonition of Patrick Henry: “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” (from his Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death speech, March 23, 1775)

Compiled and written for the purpose of glorifying God Almighty and His Son, Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Accomplished through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

— What truly is the source and root of all evil and abomination?
— Why do politicians and government leaders break their promises?
— Why is there so much war when great efforts are made for peace?
— Why do society’s problems grow steadily worse over the long run?
— Why is organized religion such a culprit in worldwide conflicts?
— Why do selfish and greedy people thrive while the humble suffer?
— I’m an honest, diligent, good person; can’t I be rich and influential too?
— Why are so many people stressed, depressed and suicidal today?
— What is the cause of all this pain? Who is perpetuating it? WHY?

The answers to these questions and many more are in this book. They are painful, difficult answers. Proceed with humility, patience and penitence.

—- end —-


I encourage you to visit the website, and read all that is available there. We currently have the text through to the end of Part 1 available to read online, but we will eventually have the entire thing posted. In the meantime, the complete Volume I is available for free download as a PDF, and for purchase – at cost (i.e., no profits to the author!).

Breaking Down the Hedge (#5)

And now, the newsletter you’ve all been waiting for… Breaking Down the Hedge (#5) – Mitt Romney Edition! Let me preface this edition by stating that I am unequivocally opposed to Barack Obama. However, I also reject the notion that I must therefore give my consent to the election of Mitt Romney.


Image: Wikimedia Commons



1. Romney’s Positions on War


A President Romney will ensure our country has the missile defenses and nuclear deterrent that our national security requires.

Source: A Clear Choice: Military Decline vs. Military Deterrent (


Together we will restore our military might and ensure that America can defend and protect our interests, our allies, and our people, both at home and abroad

Source: Military Advisory Council (


Third, the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. Resort to force is always the least desirable and costliest option. We must therefore employ all the tools of statecraft to shape the outcome of threatening situations before they demand military action. The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors and to defend our allies and ourselves.  If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.

Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense.  I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.  I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. I will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage.
I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.
I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban.  I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders.  The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.
Source: Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy (
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
My Take:
A brief analysis of these statements reveals that Mitt Romney believes:
  1. We need to greatly increase the presence and strength of the United States military
  2. The U.S. military should be in foreign countries
  3. The U.S. should have entangling alliances with other nations
  4. The United States should be involved in the economic policies of other nations
  5. We need nuclear arms to keep us safe
  6. It is the job of the United States to “police the world”
  7. Preemptive action is acceptable
  8. It is acceptable to continue violating the Constitution once a precedent has been set.

Now, let’s compare and contrast these positions with those of modern-day General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men whom we revere as prophets and apostles, and other wise men of note.

First, let’s hear from Ezra Taft Benson, who quotes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson:

Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington:
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. — George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

President Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, while discussing what he deemed to be “the essential principles of our government,”(3) explained that as far as our relations with foreign nations are concerned this means:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none. . . (March 4, 1801; Works 8:4)

I believe these quotes make it obvious that several of Mitt Romney’s positions were not shared by this Apostle (later Prophet), or the some of the most prominent of our Founding Fathers; specifically, points 2, 3, 4, and 6, above. Click here to read United States Foreign Policy by Ezra Taft Benson, in its entirety.
In Mitt Romney’s Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy, quoted in part above, he also states the following:
This is America’s moment.  We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed. That is utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.

I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President.

How does this view square with that of Ezra Taft Benson?
Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.
The “chant” of “isolationism, isolationism” has been a trendy one for years among those who have a desire to push America into progressive Socialist schemes. They contend that any traditional policy is “backwards,” that we must move “forwards.” Sound familiar? The accusation is that we would seek to seal up our borders and ignore the world, as Communist China once did. As Elder Benson described above, however, this “isolationism” is a complete work of fiction. We can continue to trade and otherwise have intercourse with other nations without moving our invading forces into their lands and telling them what they can and cannot do; without establishing enemies; without making their wars our own. Accusations of “nationalism” also abound, and they are also addressed in Elder Benson’s address, linked to above.
I would be remiss if I did not provide one more quote from that article, however; a quote from a former Senator:
Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)
Wait, what?!? The American people would be protecting their own liberty if they would stay out of other nations’ wars? Oopsies. There go points 2, 3, 4, and 6, again.
We’ve heard plenty from Ezra Taft Benson, who else can we seek guidance from? How about President Spencer W. Kimball?

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many).

I believe this statement is in direct conflict with Mitt Romney’s points 1 and 5, above, which state that he believes we must continue to increase our military presence and armaments, and flex our might in the faces of all nations as a “deterrent” to war. These positions are in obvious conflict with not only the teachings of the prophets, but, as Pres. Kimball pointed out, they also conflict with the teachings of the Savior, who loved all men, including Communists, Iraqis, and Iranians. Click here to read the rest of President Kimball’s talk, The False Gods We Worship.
In addressing point #8, above (Mitt Romney’s decision to violate the Constitution on Obama’s coattails), I provide several articles further down the page.
The only point that has not been addressed is #7, which states Mitt Romney’s belief that America should participate in preemptive war. For this, I would like to call 3 Nephi 3:19-21 to the stand:

19 Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge. 20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.

 21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that it is the duty of America to allow or disallow other nations from amassing arms, even as we ourselves do, and that we should invade their lands and enter into war when asserting our demands upon them. Does this have anything to do with “the liberty of this country” that Elder Benson/Senator Taft/Gen. Washington stated should be the sole determinant in decisions of war? Has anyone “come against us?” Why are we seeking to “fall upon them in their own lands” when this has been specifically forbidden? Those who reverence Romney because of his previous service as a Stake President would do well to ask themselves this question. Are we ever justified in ignoring the counsel of the Lord? Is there a reason The Book of Mormon was “written for our day?”
Again, Elder Benson sums it up best, in his 1967 General Conference talk, Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh:

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi exclaims: “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.” (2 Ne. 4:34.)

Prophesying of our day, Nephi said, “. . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Ne. 28:14.)

Precepts of men or principles of God

Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most.

Increasingly the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that “the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. … We should be careful of them.” (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

I believe that Mitt Romney is a man of “worldly wisdom” who has been “taught by the precepts of men” and is continuing to propagate false belief systems. Judging by his own words, as we must, he is not a man who is “wise, honest, and good” (See D&C 98:10). Follow the words of the prophets and the scriptures and you will not be deceived.

2. The Constitution Hanging by a Thread and the “White Horse Prophecy” (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.


I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church — men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution.

My Take:

In BDH#4, I discussed several popular, ridiculous, reasons many Mormons give for supporting Romney. The real issue is that people are expecting someone else to save our country and our Constitution. According to Ezra Taft Benson, however, and per the partial quote above, that is not what is going to happen. In order to save America, YOU are required to do what is necessary, and you cannot delegate that responsibility. While this article begins with a discussion of a popular unconfirmed prophecy, much of the ensuing discussion is quite important to understand. I highly recommend that you read this one in full. Hopefully, people will be inspired to put down the inappropriate expectations they have towards Romney, and begin to make the necessary personal changes that will bring America back in to favor with the Lord, or, at the very least, bring His protections upon themselves when His promised wrath is unleashed.

3. Christ and the Constitution (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.


The Lord is displeased with wickedness, and he will help those who oppose it. But he has given all of us freedom to choose, while reserving for himself our final judgment. And herein lies the hope of all Christian constitutionalists. Why? Because the fight for freedom is God’s fight, and free agency is an eternal principle. It existed before this world was formed; it will exist forever. Some men may succeed in denying some aspects of this God-given freedom to their fellowmen, but their success is temporary. Freedom is a law of God, an eternal law. And, like any of God’s laws, men cannot break it with impunity. They can only break themselves upon it. So as long as a man stands for freedom, he stands with God. Therefore, any man will be eternally vindicated and rewarded who stands for freedom.

Men receive blessings by obedience to God’s laws, and without obedience there is no blessing. Before the final triumphal return of the Lord, the question as to whether we may save our constitutional republic is simply based on two factors: the number of patriots and the extent of their obedience.

That the Lord desires to save this nation that he raised up, there is no doubt. But that he leaves it up to us, with his help, is the awful reality.

My Take:

This talk, by then-Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, describes the divinity of the united States Constitution, and our responsibility to and for it. You will notice, once again, that nowhere does he mention electing that right guy who will save America. Instead, he points out steps that we, YOU and I, must take, personally, IF America is to be saved. Mitt Romney has openly and publicly proclaimed his support for heinous federal programs which have temporarily denied Americans and others their God-given freedoms. In specific, Guantanamo (which he wants to “double”), the PATRIOT ACT, and the NDAA (See The Definitive Romney).

4. It’s the Economy, Stupid!

In another break from our usual format, I would like to address another popular cause that is getting people behind Mitt Romney: the economy. He has, of course, been quite successful, as far as worldly wealth is concerned. It is theoretically possible, although doubtful, that Mitt Romney could improve the economic situation in America. One reason this is doubtful is that Mitt Romney has continually expressed public support for the Federal Reserve, and its minions, who run an unConstitutional operation that is enslaving the American people for generations to come, even expressing his opinion that Ben Bernanke s “doing a good job.” Hmmm.

My question is this: Is it really “the economy, stupid?”

This approach implies an approach that I simply cannot get behind: that the mere possibility that Romney could improve the economy is due cause to ignore all of the other reasons NOT to support him. For instance, does a longshot chance at economic improvement negate Mitt Romney’s support of Guantanamo, and his desire to “double” it? Will you increase the amount of torture and inhumane treatment of other human beings in order to make a quick buck? What about Iran? Is the spending power of your dollar worth the destruction of another country, the lives of hundreds of thousand, even millions, of their countrymen, not to mention your own?

Like I said, this is not a concept I can get behind. Besides, if Mitt Romney can’t see the evil that the Federal Reserve is and does, then there is little  hope that anything would change, even if he could do something.

5. Obama and Romney: War No Matter Who Wins Election (InfoWars)

Read the article here.


Once again emphasizing there is no fundamental difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to attacking Iran, the American Jewish Committee has published the answers to a questionnaire sent to the candidates.

From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website:

“I am prepared to use all elements of American power” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Obama said in the questionnaires released Oct. 18 by the AJC, “including a political effort to further isolate Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition, an economic effort that has imposed crippling sanctions, and a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Romney’s response was nearly identical:

“I will press for ever tightening sanctions on the regime, acting multilaterally where we can and unilaterally where we must, and leave no doubt in the mind of the regime’s leaders that the military option remains on the table.”

My Take:

This, of course, follows on the heels of the 8 points, listed above.

6. Can God Protect us From Nukes?: The Rationale for Preemptive War (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.


The questions we face are these. Have times changed and are the technologies so different that the example of the righteous Nephite prophets and generals is not relevant to our day? Should we or should we not act preemptively if we “know” an enemy is about to attack using weapons of mass destruction. What if we are wrong for striking them? What if we get nuked?

My Take:

This is an excellent article, that discusses this topic in-depth. Given Mr. Romney’s desire to increase America’s nuclear armaments, and disallow other nations to have any, this is an appropriate discussion.

7. Foreign Policy and the Golden Rule (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.


What would Jesus have done if he were in the audience at the January debate between GOP presidential contenders in South Carolina? Surrounded by a group comprised heavily of evangelical Christians, the candidates fielded questions on foreign policy. All but Ron Paul advocated increased military intervention. Newt Gingrich suggested that the approach to those he labeled “America’s enemies” was, simply: “kill them.”

Mitt Romney doubled down on the comment. “Of course you take out our enemies, wherever they are,” he said. “These people declared war on us. They’ve killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them.”

To consistent applause, the barbaric call to invade, bomb, sanction, and occupy foreign lands was welcomed by this predominantly Christian crowd with open, eager arms.

My Take:

It is amazing to watch the decidedly un-Christian approach our supposedly Christian nation has taken to war. It seems that it is only the godless of our nation who are calling for peace. And yet, what was the message of Christ? “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Matt. 5:44). Yup, that sounds like constant war to me…

8. Joseph Smith, Habeas Corpus, Mitt Romney, and the 2012 NDAA (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.


A “writ” is merely an official mandate by a legal authority, and a “writ of habeas corpus” is one which demands that a prisoner be released from an unlawful detention when insufficient cause of evidence exists to hold him. Habeas corpus allows a prisoner to have his case reviewed by a judge to determine if the executive authority is holding him with just cause.

In another portion of his address, the prophet stated:

The constitution of the United States declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be denied…. If these powers are dangerous, then the constitution of the United States and of this state are dangerous; but they are not dangerous to good men: they are only so to bad men who are breakers of the laws. So with the laws of the country, and so with the ordinances of Nauvoo: they are dangerous to mobs, but not to good men who wish to keep the laws.

And finally:

You speak of lawyers. I am a lawyer too; but the Almighty God has taught me the principle of law; and the true meaning and intent of the writ of habeas corpus is to defend the innocent and investigate the subject. Go behind the writ and if the form of one that is issued against an innocent man is right, he should [nevertheless] not be dragged to another state, and there be put to death, or be in jeopardy of life and limb, because of prejudice, when he is innocent. The benefits of the constitution and laws are alike for all; and the great Eloheim has given me the privilege of having the benefits of the constitution and the writ of habeas corpus…

My Take:

Mitt Romney’s support of the PATRIOT ACT and NDAA, which both remove the rights of American citizens to due process, habeus corpus, protection from unlawful search and seizure, protection from wrongful imprisonment, and many more, is in stark contrast to both the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord Himself, in D&C 101:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

9. No End to the “War on Terror,” No End to Guantánamo (The Future of Freedom Foundation)

Read the article here.


Moreover, with a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the justification for holding men at Guantánamo would also vanish, and the government would have the opportunity to return to the detention policies that served everyone perfectly well before the 9/11 attacks: prosecuting those involved with alleged terrorist activities in federal court, and holding soldiers as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, and freeing them at the end of hostilities.

That, however, is too sensible a suggestion for those who, rather than accepting bin Laden’s death as the logical end of a decade of “war” that has been both ruinously expensive and morally and legally disastrous, and that has also led to a chronic loss of life, want exactly the opposite: a springboard for an even bigger “war on terror,” and a cynical excuse to keep Guantánamo open forever.

My Take:

All that stuff about “the rights and protection of all flesh” and “it is not right that any man should be in bondage” kinda goes out the window, apparently. We’re America! We get to keep people in jail forever, torture them, and our president can kill them if he wants! “Who is the Lord that I should know him?” (Moses 5:16)

Related articles:

Bringing torture back: Romney wants to waterboard again (PressTV)

10. Church Leader Says: “Military in Almost Complete Control of Government” (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.


I regret to say, indeed I am almost ashamed to say, that at the moment, our military branches seem in almost complete control of our own government.  They appear to dominate Congress, and under the circumstances, we may assume they are in sufficient control of our foreign relations to be able to set the international scene. To us who do not know, it looks clear that we are today getting the same sort of propaganda of half-truths, told in the same evasive ways, with equivalent hints and dark forebodings that preceded the last war.  We are not justified in doubting, on the facts, we have, that we of the United States are, for the first time in our history, under a real threat from our military arm, and that if the plans of the militarists carry, we shall become as thoroughly militarized as was Germany at her best, or worst.  Certain it is we are being generously dosed with that sovereign narcotic, which designing militarists have in the past always administered to their peoples, the doctrine that to ensure peace we must maintain a great army and gigantic armaments.  But this ignores, indeed conceals, the unvarying historical fact that big armies have always brought, not peace, but war which has ended in a hate that in due course brings another war.

My Take:

Pres. J. Reuben Clark gave this address in 1947, but it is obviously still relevant in our own day, if not more so! Given Mitt Romney’s proclivity for war and military might, I thought it only prudent that we should be reminded by a prophet of the Lord that war does not bring peace!

11. Romney: The Boy Scouts should admit homosexuals (LifeSiteNews)

My Take:

Having served as a Stake President, Mitt Romney is no doubt well aware of the LDS Church’s stance on homosexuality, of the fact that the LDS Church is the largest supporter of Boy Scouts of America, and of their stance against homosexuals serving in close proximity with young boys. Alas, this has obviously not stopped him from forming an opposite opinion and expressing it publicly. To me, this would cause doubts as to whether I should count his Church leadership service as a mark in his favor, and as being something that automatically makes him trustworthy. To be sure,, I do not hold that sort of opinion towards him, but many do, and I hope they will rethink their position.

12. Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past (Think Progress)

Read the article here.


The Nation’s investigative report has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

My Take:

GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) have been making the news lately, as the public becomes more aware of their existence and the serious health threat they pose. In California, there is a proposed bill that would make companies notify the public of GMO’s in their products via product labeling. So, in light of this recent surge in interest in GMO’s, I thought this little tidbit was interesting. Monsanto is the world’s leading proponent and manufacturer of GMO’s. They have been planting GMO crops next to organic/normal crops which then become contaminated by the GMO breed. Then, Monsanto has sued the farmers for patent infringement for having their patented crop on their property. And – most shockingly – they have won nearly all of these cases! They created Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam, and which they told the world was tested as safe for humans, but which turned out to cause all sorts of health abnormalities and even deaths. Oops. No worries, though! Mitt Romney saved the day by helping everyone forget about all that stuff! That’s the kind of thing that gets you the White House!

13. Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rule changes (Yahoo! News)

Read the article here.


On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texas delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican Party’s rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg proposed the rule last week

My Take:

Back in August, I posted an article, entitled Was the Republican Convention Romney’s Defining Moment?, in which I discussed the RNC rule changes, undeniably created to keep Ron Paul out of contention for the candidacy. I speculated about what this might tell us about Mitt Romney’s character. Specifically, I said:

…this all boils down to one of the following options:

  1. Romney knew about these underhanded tactics ahead of time, and supported them, either actively or passively. A poor show of character.
  2. Romney did not know in advance, but even after finding out, accepted the win it provided him. Another poor show of character.
  3. Romney did not know in advance, but now that he knows about it, he will soon be calling for a proper vote. The only choice for a man of character.

In the article, I mentioned, and linked to, an interview in which Mitt Romney states that he “would not comment on it,” and he “really hasn’t looked at [it].” In light of the above disclosure – that it was his very own campaign lawyer who proposed the changes makes these claims very hard to believe! In fact, I don’t believe it.

14. Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.


This plea has been the unanimous outcry of Romney supporters desperate for additional votes to see him succeed. “Support and vote for Mitt Romney,” writes the op-ed’s author, “or help Obama complete his transformation of America into a nation that violates every principle you claim you embrace.” Or, as one Facebook commenter said, “How does voting for someone who can’t possibly win actually help the cause of liberty?”

There is an assumption in these comments that a Romney presidency would be better for the cause of liberty than an Obama presidency. I’m going to argue the opposite. In other words, I’m going to now suggest why an Obama re-election may be the better option, in the presidential race, for the overall long-term success of the cause of liberty.

Where were all the jealous guardians of freedom during the Bush years? Where was the enraged right—the Constitution-loving conservatives who opposed Bush’s policies as much as they do Obama’s now, which are largely an extension of everything Bush did during his presidency?

The answer? They were almost entirely silent, content to go on with their daily lives confident that because a Republican was in control, they need not pay much attention. Still worse, many praised Bush for his efforts, calling him a man of God, a prayerful individual, the “Commander in Chief” looking out in all cases, and at all times, for America’s best interest!

If Romney is elected, I predict that much of the tea-party faction in American politics will once again grow silent. These same individuals who praised Bush, and who now have boiling blood when talking about what Obama is doing, are praising Romney as a man who can “fix” Washington and upon whom the future success of America now solely depends. So, imagine the next eight years of more big government Republicanism with a silent conservative base largely ignoring the continual constitutional atrocities inflicted by one of their own.

Consider the alternative, though. Let’s say that Obama is re-elected for four years. The conservative base remains enraged with blood boiling, recognizing that in order to combat the popular progressivism they’ll need to field a far better candidate in 2016 to ensure that nobody like Obama ever has another chance to impose the evil that he has during his two terms. Along the way, new media educational initiatives have found fertile ground in this active, angry, aware group of citizens, who over the four years realize the inconsistency of conservatism and embrace libertarianism. They stand better prepared, ready, and willing to ensure that the next nominee for the Republican party is one worthy of support, both by general Republican voters and the libertarian/independent wings as well. They swoop into 2016 with a strong candidate, strong principles, and a platform worthy of support. They have plenty of material to use as contrast to show why their vision is far, far better than what the previous eight years has brought, and they achieve electoral success.

My Take:

While I do not hold out the same optimism that Connor apparently does about the 2016 elections, I completely agree with him about what has happened with the so-called Conservative and Republican constituency. When they aren’t being whipped into a frenzy by the fear-mongering mainstream media and TV and radio pundits, they have nary a thought in their heads as to the Constitutionality of their elected representatives’ actions.

15. Romney and Obama are Not Much Different


My whole view – and I’ve said this on air – Mitt Romney’s views are closer to Barack Obama’s than they are to Thomas Jefferson’s and he presents just a slightly different version of big government. In fact, in the defense policy he might actually be worse than the President because he seems to be itching to start a war with Iran. In terms of domestic policy, he contemplates additional borrowing, maybe a little less than the President has borrowed. If the President is re-elected he might bring us to $20 trillion in debt by 2016; Romney might bring us to $18 trillion in debt by 2016. Either of those federal debts would be unsustainable

Source: Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice (The Daily Bell)


Republicans are being told that they have “no choice” but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This “lesser of two evils” theme comes out every four years.  We are told that we “must” vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine.  Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 million Americans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

Source: 40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate (End of the American Dream)

My Take:

If you actually believe that you are being given a real choice between the two major presidential candidates, you need to wake up. I highly suggest you read the article just quoted, and consider the 40 points they present. Our elections have become a charade.

16. Why Ron Paul Republicans Won’t Vote for Romney (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.


Throughout this presidential campaign cycle, media pundits and competing candidates have been quick to label Ron Paul and his supporters as unrepresentative of the GOP. “I don’t think Ron Paul represents the mainstream,” said Mitt Romney just days before the Iowa caucus in January. “I’m working harder than anyone to make sure he’s not the nominee.”

That statement would repeatedly prove itself true over the following eight months as Romney’s lawyers and surrogates worked multiple angles to unseat elected delegates who supported Ron Paul, change convention rules to minimize the influence of such delegates, and frustrate their goals in sparking any change or controversy. As if it couldn’t get any worse, Romney’s campaign and the RNC scripted the convention itself so that no mention of Paul’s delegate vote was made, and the result of an important vote was pre-determined to be read from the teleprompter by the chairman.

One can imagine how disenfranchised and frustrated Paul supporters have felt in recent weeks with the GOP. Treated like enemies, it’s a bit jarring to hear so many insisting that they should see Romney and his campaign as friends. But that’s exactly what is happening.

My Take:

Stab us in the back and then shake us by the hand. I’m thinking no. BTW, love the candid Romney quote! Gotta love someone who can tell the truth and lie about it all at the same time! But he was a Stake President. He would never lie! Oh, the naivete.

Also, from the article:

But let’s be clear—this isn’t just about campaign strategy and thuggish convention practices. The real reason why Ron Paul supporters aren’t lining up to help “defeat Obama” by voting for Romney is that they see little substantive difference between the two. There are myriad superficial differences, to be sure, but on foreign policy, civil liberties, the war on drugs, and a litany of domestic issues, there is no distinguishable contrast between candidates. Ron Paul’s crowd doesn’t get very excited over trading lots of big government for a little less big government.

17. Is a Vote for Ron Paul a Vote for Obama, or the Product of a Disenfranchised Right? (Huffington Post)

Read the article here.


In the end, though, we have meaningful questions to ask: are third-party voters betraying the Republican Party, or are these voters a product of the Republican Party betraying the ideals of small government? And, even if Ron Paul were to swing the election, is it possible that conservatives and libertarians are so disenfranchised that their symbolic votes of displeasure have become more important than winning a race to the White House?

My Take:

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against both Obama and Romney, and not in favor of either. It is a vote in favor of the Constitution.

18. The False Left-Right Paradigm

One thing that every American needs to be aware of is the fact that we are all being manipulated by being pitted against each other. Ever since I woke up to the false paradigm, I have started listening to what is being said on “both sides of the aisle” and I have found that there are elements of truth on both sides, but spun in a way that causes the people to be divided. If we will only listen to each other, and discuss facts, we can come to the whole truth.

One way that this division is being fabricated is by stirring up contentions with emotionally-charged headlines. When you see things that make your blood boil, step back and ask yourself if it was intended to create that reaction within you. For instance, the recent headlines about 50 Crazy Things That Obama Supporters Are Threatening To Do If Romney Wins. Again, this happens on both sides of the so-called aisle. That article is from On the “Left” they are being force-fed articles like Romney “47 Percent” Fundraiser Host: Hedge Fund Manager Who Likes Sex Parties and SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters. Trouble is, the two sides never hear any of the bad stuff about their own candidate; only the opposition. It is difficult to conceive how such a situation could perpetuate on its own. Therefore, someone is controlling which information goes to which crowd. This, of course, is enabled through the media pundits, as no one listens to representatives of both sides, so they only get the one side of the story that is meant for them. And, voila! Instant division! This process is enabled via the world media monopoly.

19. Romney Is a Liberal (Lew Rockwell via InfoWars)

Read the article here.


One knows more or less what four more years of Obama will bring, but Romney seems harder to figure out. He looks nice enough and does have a photogenic family. He probably would manage the economy a bit better than the present administration and would please the Right and center by probably appointing (but who knows!) less left-leaning judges to the federal courts than those favored by the Democrats. But this guy changes his positions the way Beyoncé switches her hair styles. Even worse, his supporters have been so conditioned to hate Obama that they don’t even notice.

My Take:

First of all, notice the reference to the economy. The foolish belief that Romney can and will change something. Next, notice the last line. This is a tacit admission that even the “Right” are being brainwashed in order for their candidate to pull the wool over their eyes, just as other “conservative” and “Christian” presidents have done in the past.

20. This Is Insanity! (Chuck Baldwin Live)

Read the article here.


I believe Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Using that definition, it would appear that many of our so-called “conservative” friends are insane. Every four years, they accept a phony conservative Presidential candidate and expect somehow that they are going to achieve a different result. They never do. Either the phony conservative loses because he is virtually indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent (i.e., John McCain), or after being elected while campaigning as a true conservative, he governs as a big-government neocon, and the course of the country changes not one iota (i.e., George W. Bush). This election year is no exception.

The GOP has nominated a man who has governed as a big-government liberal in one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) states in the union: Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on virtually every issue one can think of, Governor Romney has flip-flopped more often than a fish that just landed in the bottom of a boat.

My Take:

Chuck Baldwin is a man who loves the Constitution, and who is not fooled by political shenanigans. I believe this quote speaks for itself.

21. Harry Reid: Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism (Salt Lake Tribune via LDS Living)

Read the article here.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he agrees with a fellow Mormon who wrote recently that Mitt Romney has “sullied” the LDS faith and that the GOP presidential candidate is “not the face of Mormonism.”

My Take:

Funny thing is, neither of these men are “the face of Mormonism.” When people say they are going to vote for Romney because he is LDS, I always point to Harry Reid and say, “So is he.” That shuts ’em up. C’mon, people. Think for yourselves.

22. Romney Knows Nothing About the Constitution

My Take:

When it comes to the Constitution, that document inspired of God, Mitt Romney is on record saying quite a few things that make me cringe. For one thing, he never references it in his decision making, as demonstrated in the above video. Particularly disturbing in this video is Romney’s assertion that “you sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do” when it comes to obvious, straightforward Constitutional issues, like getting approval from Congress to go to war.


My Take:

Just in case you thought your vote actually counted…! And don’t try to convince me that they were just running a “test.” #1, you don’t run tests on live television; professionals have separate workstations for that. And #2, you don’t run tests with real information! Even web designers use “Lorem Ipsum” text when they make website mock-ups! Don’t be stupid, and don’t be fooled.

And that, my friends, ends this week’s Breaking Down the Hedge newsletter. Please share this information with all of your friends and family! The election is only a week away! May God bless us all as we strive to do what is right, and may He bless America as we all repent and return to Him and to the Constitution!

Breaking Down the Hedge (#4)

Our fourth edition of Breaking Down the Hedge is devoted to American politics 2012. Timely! We hope some of this comes in handy as you attempt to awaken your friends and family. Good luck!

Politics in General

1. If You Were King (YouTube)

My Take:

This is an excellent little video that helps explain the proper role of government. Great for people who support government welfare and other do-good schemes.

2. Vote 4 Stuff (YouTube)

My Take:

And then there’s this. Leonardo DiCaprio and other uber-rich Hollywood smuckety schmucks mock our political process by making it about “stuff.”

3. Obama and Romney: A “debate” without real differences (Global Research)

Read the article here.


The United States is in the grip of the worst social crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, with record levels of long-term unemployment, record levels of hunger and homelessness, mass layoffs of workers in the public schools and other essential services, deteriorating public infrastructure and deepening poverty and social misery.

Aside from two sentences from Romney—in the course of proposing measures that would make the crisis even worse for working people—there was no reference to this social reality in 90 minutes of debate. The words “poverty” and “unemployment” never crossed Obama’s lips. Neither candidate offered any proposals to alleviate mass suffering, put the unemployed to work or rebuild public services devastated by budget cuts.

On the contrary, more than four years into an economic crisis brought on by the greatest financial collapse of the profit system since the 1930s, both candidates pledged their loyalty to Wall Street and hailed capitalism as the greatest boon to mankind.

My Take:

In an online forum prior to the debates, someone pointedly suggested that you would be dreaming if anything of substance actually were discussed there. They mentioned a few specifics that would not be mentioned: repealing the NDAA, ending the Communist practice of “czars” in Washington, reducing the size of the federal government, shutting down the TSA, Agenda 21, or pulling the US out of the UN. Personally, I would have actually watched the debates if I thought something on this list would be discussed! But, what do we get instead? Big Bird. In the end, there is no evidence that there will be real “change” no matter who gets elected. It’s almost as if there were someone pulling strings behind the scenes…

4. Reality Check: Who Is Behind The Commission on Presidential Debates? Are The Debates Rigged? (YouTube)

My Take:

“The CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) was then formed by the Republican and Democrat parties…” That about sums it up. Did you actually believe our elections were fair and honest?!? Now, Gary Johnson is mentioned in this clip, but it should be known that he is no acceptable substitute for Ron Paul, who is the only person I am aware of who has demonstrated a consistent practice of abiding by the Constitution – for two decades!

5. Reality Check: The Real Numbers Behind Romney and Obama’s Deficit Plans (YouTube)

My Take:

As usual, neither of these fools proposes any meaningful budget cuts. In fact, what Obama proposes – cutting $4 trillion over a decade – is the standard charade, pointed out bu Joel Skousen in one of his World Affairs Brief newsletters: making promises that the politician will not have to fulfill himself, and which will never actually happen because the person in power then will more than likely repeal them. It’s been done time and time again over the past decades. And yet, the people don’t seem to catch on…

6. Voting Criteria for Latter-day Saints (Frost Cave)

Read the article here.


…I’ve been surprised to hear them misapply those facts and come to conclusions like, “The Church has no position on politics at all. The Brethren have individual opinions, but they have made no official statements on laws or government that we should feel bound to follow.” Conclusions like this are incorrect. While the Church is definitely politically neutral regarding individual people, parties, or platforms, it is not politically neutral on principles of government. In some cases, they have even endorsed or opposed specific bills by name. Modern prophets have given us all kinds of counsel on what criteria to consider when voting and being politically involved. If we are wise, we’ll search out the prophets’ counsel and try to make our voting criteria match the Brethren’s.

The purpose of this article is to share what the prophets have said we should consider when voting. It may or may not change who you vote for, but that’s not really my goal. Even if it doesn’t change who or what you support, I hope it helps you support them for the right reasons.

My Take:

I want to end this section on politics with one specifically directed at Latter-day Saints (Mormons). the LDS have been given more counsel on government than any other people I am aware of. In recent decades, it has been one of the most discussed topics of all. A quick perusal of the Latter-Day Conservative website will tell you everything you need to know, straight from the horses’ mouths. Go ahead, look up socialism, or abortion, or even welfare or education. You will be surprised at what you didn’t know, but should have! The above article includes a great worksheet to help you visualize the reasons you support a candidate.

After discussing Constitutionality (which all present candidates fail miserably, in my opinion), the author addresses the top 4 reasons I have heard LDS say they will vote for Romney, all of them ridiculous. My comments are in red:

Interestingly, as I’ve read up on the Brethren’s counsel on what criteria to use when selecting candidates or laws, I have never heard them say we should vote for someone because he or she

  • Has the best leadership or business experience to (for example) turn the economy around (Brigham Young once chided the Latter-day Saints because of their obsession with money. So did Hugh Nibley. My, how some things never change. Is Romney’s support of unConstitutional foreign wars, which are specifically forbidden by the scriptures, less important than the economy?!?)
  • Has the best chance of beating another candidate (I think Obama might defeat Satan in an election. Would that leave us any better off? Would that be supporting the best candidate, or just reacting out of fear?)
  • Will have a good impact publicity-wise on the Church worldwide (We are electing a someone to lead the United States, not promote our religion! That’s your job!)
  • Is a member of the LDS church (So is Harry Reid. ‘Nuf said.)

Photo: Wikipedia.


1. John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution (Truthout)

Read the article here.


TURLEY: Well, the way that this works is you have this unseen panel. Of course, their proceedings are completely secret. The people who are put on the hit list are not informed, obviously.

CUSACK: That’s just not polite, is it?

TURLEY: No, it’s not. The first time you’re informed that you’re on this list is when your car explodes, and that doesn’t allow much time for due process. But the thing about the Obama administration is that it is far more premeditated and sophisticated in claiming authoritarian powers. Bush tended to shoot from the hip — he tended to do these things largely on the edges. In contrast, Obama has openly embraced these powers and created formal measures, an actual process for killing US citizens. He has used the terminology of the law to seek to legitimate an extrajudicial killing.

CUSACK: Yeah, bringing the law down to meet his political realism, his constitutional realism, which is that the Constitution is just a means to an end politically for him, so if it’s inconvenient for him to deal with due process or if it’s inconvenient for him to deal with torture, well, then why should he do that? He’s a busy man. The Constitution is just another document to be used in a political fashion, right?

My Take:

Although I shared this already in Breaking Down the Hedge (#2), I still feel that it is important enough to share again. People need to read this, and share it with their Obama-lovin’ friends and family. They need to wake up and see what he has actually been doing in private after making all of the fancy promises in public.

2. Bad Facts about Obama’s Prospects (Eagle Forum)

Read the article here.


Although the polls show the presidential campaigns neck and neck, the facts continue to look negative for Barack Obama. Two-thirds of the American people say they believe the United States is going in the wrong direction, and changing the occupant of the White House is the only way to reverse course.

Unemployment remains the prime political issue, but the Democrats still allow a tsunami of legal and illegal immigrants to take jobs away from U.S. citizens. Obama’s Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt, is busy creating jobs in Communist China instead of in the U.S.A.

Obama’s wild spending is putting an albatross around the necks of our children and grandchildren. Americans have enough personal debt, and they don’t want their kids to assume the burden of paying for Obama’s extravagances.

My Take:

I must preface my comments with the following disclaimer: both of the major political parties are controlled from behind the scenes by the same people, and when in power, seek to achieve the same goals. And now, my comments on this article.

I follow Eagle Forum for the same reason I am not afraid to read articles from the Huffington Post: if you ignore the spin, you will (often, but not always) discover truth. So, as long as you don’t believe everything you read, you will come off better for paying attention. As in this article. While I wholeheartedly disagree with Phyllis Schlafly’s conclusion that “changing the occupant of the White House is the only way to reverse course,” she does point some excellent reasons not to support Obama any further.

3. Judge Napolitano: Once We Have More Info on Drone Strikes, Voters Can Make an Informed Decision About Whether They Want a President Who Kills People (Fox News Insider)

Read the article here.


Judge Napolitano said the drone strikes are “profoundly unlawful (and) unconstitutional,” and supports the release of the documents.

They believe that somehow, from some source other than the Constitution, that (the president) has the power to do this. … The more we know about it, the more voters can make an informed judgment as to whether they want a president who kills people and claims he can get away with it,” said Napolitano.

My Take:

Yeah, the title of this article pretty well sums it up. If we keep in mind that “We The People” created the federal government, and We approved the Constitution, which is the SOLE source from which the president derives his powers and authorities, then We must stop and ask ourselves exactly where he thinks he has derived the power to murder people at will, and whether or not We will allow him to continue doing so. And, by the way, this is one practice I do not see ending should Romney inherit the White House.

4. Judge Napolitano: Executive Privilege Only Applies If Obama Involved (YouTube)

My Take:

Most people heard that Obama exercised his (unConstitutional) executive privilege to excuse Eric Holder from testifying during the Fast and Furious scandal earlier this year. What most people did not hear was that this was only an option for the president if he, himself, was personally involved. Interesting.

5. Obama Dedicates Chavez National Monument (ABC News)

Read the article here.


Speaking to a crowd of more than 6,000 at Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz, the farm where the late Chavez lived and led his worker movement, Obama paid tribute to the labor leader, saying he “gave workers a reason to hope.”

“The movement he helped to lead was sustained by a generation of organizers who stood up and spoke out and urged others to do the same,” he said. “It drew strength from Americans of every race and every background, who marched and boycotted together on behalf of La Causa. And it was always inspired by the farm workers themselves.

“Our world is a better place because Cesar Chavez decided to change it. Let us honor his memory. But most importantly, let’s live up to his example,” he said.

My Take:

Do we really need a national monument celebrating another Communist? Is anyone who really understands Barack Obama surprised by this? I’ m not. But, if you are (and really, even if you’re not), I recommend this post by Trevor Loudon at the New Zeal, entitled “Yes They Did!: Barack Obama, Cesar Chavez and Their Common Communist Roots.” Did we pay attention? No, we didn’t. Chavez formed the United Farm Workers’ Union alongside another person, Dolores Huerta:

He was, for over 40 years, the partner of a U.F.W. founder and long time Democratic Socialists of America Honorary Chair Dolores Huerta. Obama himself has enjoyed almost a thirty year relationship with D.S.A., the U.S.’s largest Marxist organization.

The article also explains that Cesar Chavez organized a group called Community Service Organization, which – surprise, surprise! – was funded by Saul Alinsky. If you don’t know who he was, well… you have some homework to do.

6. Review: “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within” (New American)

Read the article.


Much of the credit for breaking the media blackout on Barack Obama’s real political identity goes to Trevor Loudon of New Zealand, whose websites and have published reams of important information on Barack Obama, key activists in his administration, and the national network of labor unions, think tanks, academics, “community organizations,” and political operations that are crucial to moving his Marxist agenda. Loudon has laboriously unearthed hundreds of documents and thousands of published stories from establishment, communist, and leftist publications to “connect the dots” demonstrating the extensive subversive web of  “Progressive” activists that propelled Obama to power. He has done what legions of MSM reporters should have done, but failed to do. However, unlike many of the other “conservatives” who regularly discredit themselves and “the Right” by attacking Obama on talk radio and the blogosphere with insults, invective and profanity-laced bombast, and unsubstantiated charges, Loudon restricts his commentary to facts, solid analysis, logical inference and hard-hitting, but civil, discourse.

My Take:

I have been following Trevor Loudon since 2008, and used his information to try to dissuade voters from supporting Obama at that time. He really does provide solid facts, as opposed to the party-line tripe that comes from the mainstream media pundits, which is designed entirely to instill fear, which then serves to motivate voters to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” This practice, incidentally, happens on “both sides” of the so-called political aisle. I highly recommend paying attention to Trevor Loudon, via his websites, and even this book, as I am sure it continues Loudon’s proven trend of providing information that you will get from no other source.

7. Valerie B. Jarrett (Key Wiki)

Read the article here.


Valerie Jarrett currently works as a senior advisor to U.S. president Barack Obama and has been referred to as “the other side of Obama’s brain.” Born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents, Jarrett spent the first five years of her life there before her family moved to London. Jarrett comes from a family of highly influential leftists. In 1983 she married Dr. William Robert Jarrett, son of famed Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. Vernon Jarrett was a one time political associate of Communist Party USA activist and Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis. Jarrett is the great niece of prominent Democratic Party leftist Vernon Jordan and her maternal grandfather was Robert Taylor, the first black chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority. Jarrett is a personal friend of Marilyn Katz who worked with Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960s group that banded radical left youth and students together under the New Left movement.

My Take:

So… Obama hires a woman whose father-in-law had close political ties to a man who was a high-profile Communist, who may or may not have been Obama’s real dad, but who definitely was Obama’s mentor during the most influential period of his life. That’s interesting. And… she is friends with someone who worked with the S.D.S., the same group from which sprang the Weather Underground, the radical terrorist organization that Obama’s best friend, Bill Ayers, was a prominent member of, which group planned to murder millions of Americans who would not succumb to their re-education plans. Well, that doesn’t worry me at all. (Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Romney! Read on!)

8. (YouTube)

Visit the YouTube channel here.

My Take:

This is a great way to hold politicians accountable: by using their own words against them! These guys have several videos demonstrating what Obama once claimed he would do versus what he has either done or later said he would do. I would love to see a Romney version of this. Oh wait, there is.

9. Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President Obama and the NDAA? (YouTube)


Ben Swann Reality Check takes a look at how President Obama says one thing about the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA and yet continually does another.

My Take:

Speaking of words mattering…

10. Samuel L. Jackson: Wake the f— up (Politico)

Read the article, and watch the video, here.


Dissing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in rhyming verses, Jackson says:

Sorry, my friends, but there’s no time to snore.

An out-of-touch millionaire has just declared war.

On schools, the environment, unions, fair pay.

We’re all on our own if Romney has his way.

And he’s against safety nets, if you fall, tough luck.

So I strongly suggest that you wake the f—k up.

My Take:

Hollywood continues their trend of using star power to support Communism and anti-Americanism. Note that this piece is designed to instill fear of an opposing political candidate rather than promote one’s virtues, as mentioned above.

11. “Phantoms of Lost Liberty” Still Haunting Post-9/11 America (New American)

Read the article here.


Then came a new president, one who had been a vocal critic of civil liberties violations when they were practiced by the Bush administration. But Barack Obama’s list of persons, including American citizens, designated for “targeted killings” far from any field of military battle, raised further questions about whether our government was in the business of protecting or destroying life and liberty. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the constitutional guarantee of “due process” does not necessarily require a court of law. “The Constitution guarantees due process not judicial process,” Holder explained. A review and determination by the president and those with whom he chooses to share that responsibility may suffice. The roles of judge, jury, and executioner are thus vested in one all-powerful chief executive.

My Take:

This is another article I shared previously, but thought important enough to share again, this time in connection with Obama, specifically. Interestingly, I have yet to hear Mitt Romney say he will reverse these practices.

12. Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (Connor Boyack)

Read the article here.


Okay, perhaps that’s true. In fact, I’ll venture to say that it’s almost 100% true that an Obama presidency would be worse for Americans than a Romney one. Why, then, would Obama in office be a better thing for the cause of liberty?

The answer to this question lies in the answer to a different question. Where were all the jealous guardians of freedom during the Bush years? Where was the enraged right—the Constitution-loving conservatives who opposed Bush’s policies as much as they do Obama’s now, which are largely an extension of everything Bush did during his presidency?

The answer? They were almost entirely silent, content to go on with their daily lives confident that because a Republican was in control, they need not pay much attention. Still worse, many praised Bush for his efforts, calling him a man of God, a prayerful individual, the “Commander in Chief” looking out in all cases, and at all times, for America’s best interest!

If Romney is elected, I predict that much of the tea-party faction in American politics will once again grow silent. These same individuals who praised Bush, and who now have boiling blood when talking about what Obama is doing, are praising Romney as a man who can “fix” Washington and upon whom the future success of America now solely depends. So, imagine the next eight years of more big government Republicanism with a silent conservative base largely ignoring the continual constitutional atrocities inflicted by one of their own.

My Take:

Connor is absolutely right. If America survives another four years of Obama, it will be better in the long run because it will piss people off even more and give them a deeper desire to see something really change, rather than pretending everything is better because a Republican is in the White House, as under Bush. Part of the problem is, of course, the mainstream media pundits who are completely controlled, and tell you only what they want you to hear, and who lead the people in their feigned outrage over some things and entirely ignore other bigger things.

Okay, I was going to address Romney in this issue, as well, but it has taken me so long to put this much together, I will have to save Romney for next time! Until then… DON’T BELIEVE A WORD ANYONE SAYS!

Breaking Down the Hedge (#3)

It’s a few days late, but it’s finally here! The THIRD edition of the weekly newsletter, Breaking Down the Hedges! What’s in store for us this week? I have to mention that some of my favorite people on earth still to this day do not see any reason to be concerned about the level of public (and personal) monitoring/surveillance that is going on all around us. I hope they read this first section.

Image: Wikipedia.


1. Maryland Police Are Deploying Cameras To Watch Other Cameras (Business Insider, via InfoWars)

Read the article here.


…local people had started targeting the speed cameras police put up in intersections, as well as surveillance cameras. The police said that since April, six people have been involved in camera damaging activities.

He said he didn’t get too worried until the fire. Yes, one of the cameras incinerated.

Liberati, who’s the commander of the Automated Enforcement Section, in other words “speed cameras,” says each camera can cost up to $30,000. They needed to do something to deter the camera saboteurs. Liberati thought cameras to watch the cameras was a good solution.

Liberati said that speed cameras, under Maryland state law, can only be used to track speeding violations, so the station ordered separate surveillance cameras.

My Take

It is interesting to me that the police, who are ostensibly “serving the people,” are not taking a hint from the violent reaction of the people, and are instead deploying the stupid cameras-to-watch-cameras. In the end, monitoring the populace is profitable to various government agencies, and it will never go away. The local police pad their coffers with tickets and fines, and what do the Feds get? Read on…

2. Judge Napolitano: Bipartisan Senate Panel Report Finds DHS Intelligence Effort Had ‘Nothing to Do With National Security’ (Fox News Insider)

Read the article here.


According to the bipartisan investigation, the program found no potential terrorist activity and often spied on innocent Americans.

The Senate panel wrote in its report, “The subcommittee investigation found that the fusion centers often produce irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever.”

Judge Napolitano said the program is costly, but the DHS doesn’t know the exact price tag. It could cost anywhere between $300 million and $1 billion dollars. The Senate committee says that more than $1.4 billion has been spent and even counted a different number of fusion centers than the DHS claims to have.

My Take:

So, the federal government is paying an unknown amount to fund an unknown number of “fusion centers” that are not helping the Department of Homeland Security accomplish its supposed task of keeping us safe from terrorists, and instead are “[spying] on innocent Americans.” Is that clear? No worries, though. You can trust Big Brother. And you were wondering what this one had to do with surveillance!

3. ACLU of Michigan exposes police surveillance cameras being used in residential neighborhoods (End the Lie)

Read the article here.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan recently put out a fascinating report (PDF) on the use of surveillance cameras in residential Lansing, Michigan which seems to be congruent with the ongoing rise of the use of surveillance cameras and associated technologies.

The growth in the use of surveillance cameras coincides with the increasingly common use of armored surveillance vehicles as well as expansion of the American surveillance state as a whole.

Some of the placements are nothing short of disturbing with one camera boasting a 360-degree field of view of an area up to 500 feet with zoom capability placed immediately outside of a home.

The cameras placed by the Lansing Police Department run around the clock and leverage high-definition color, night vision and focus features that allow the camera to “resolve minute detail in even the most severe environmental conditions,” according to the report.

“This means that the Lansing cameras give police the ability to read words on a piece of paper in someone’s hand within 50 feet, clearly discern a license plate that is 300 feet away, or recognize a face at 400 feet,” the ACLU of Michigan writes.

My Take:

Well, once again, I fail to see what the problem is here. When a terrorist decides to drive up to your home in a severe thunderstorm to steal your mail, the local police will have all the necessary camera footage to prosecute that sucker! I’m feeling safer already! Now, if only I could get them to come out when my vehicles get stolen…

4. Intensified Warrantless Spying in America (Global Research)

Read the article here.


Newly released ACLU Justice Department documents and Kurt Eichenwald‘s just published book titled “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars” provide new information on lawless spying in America.

Eichenwald described “the most dramatic expansion of NSA’s power and authority in the agency’s 49 year history.” It was devised days after 9/11, he said. In fact, it began much earlier.

In December 2000, the NSA said:

“The volumes and routing of data make finding and processing nuggets of intelligence information more difficult. To perform both its offensive and defensive mission, NSA must ‘live on the network.’ “

Its mission “demand(s) a powerful, permanent presence on a global telecommunications network that will host the ‘protected’ communications of Americans as well as the targeted communications of adversaries.

Who knows when this began. Bet on long before 9/11. That incident made it easier. Doing so disregards Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provisions.

Obama officials claim they trump rule of law accountability. Incontrovertible evidence doesn’t matter. Based on their say alone,they claim a divine right to operate unconstitutionally ad nauseam.

They want Supreme Court approval. Most people have no idea what’s going on. Unless the High Court slaps them down, they and succeeding administrations will operate unconstitutionally without interference.

My Take:

Okay, let me get this one straight: the NSA had a plan back in 2000 to monitor “the ‘protected’ communications of Americans,” they implemented these acts after 9/11, blaming it on the necessity of protecting us from supposed terrorists that did not exist as a threat 11 years prior, and they have been violating both the Foreign Surveillance Act and the Constitution to do it all along. Nope, nothing to see here.

5. House Approves Sweeping, Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers (Wired)

Read the article here.


The House on Wednesday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which is expiring at year’s end, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

The government has also interpreted the law to mean that as long as the real target is al-Qaida, the government can wiretap purely domestic e-mails and phone calls without getting a warrant from a judge. That’s according to David Kris, a former top anti-terrorism attorney at the Justice Department.

The government does not have to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

The vote was 301-118 in favor of passage, with 111 Democrats and seven Republicans voting no.

Smith, while imploring the House to pass the measure, said the FISA Amendments Act “is one of the most important votes we cast in this Congress.” Terrorists, he added, “are committed to the destruction of our country.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) countered during a more than hour debate on the floor, urging the House to defeat the measure. “I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time,” she said. “We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States.”

My Take:

Number One thing to remember here is that “terrorists” are an intentionally nebulous group, to which anyone can allegedly belong, thus providing the perfect setup for what the NDAA established: anyone can be arrested for any reason, and detained anywhere for any length of time, up to and including forever. The military-industrialist complex profits from war. The selected target du jour loses. The Federal government gains power from war. The American people lose. The hardest thing about keeping this cycle running in the past was continually finding, and fomenting hatred against, a new enemy, every time an old one disappeared. Now, we have “terrorism,” the eternal, invisible, chameleon enemy.

Did you notice how the rights of Americans mean absolutely nothing, let alone the Constitution? Think about that for a minute: they are ignoring the Constitution, the one document upon which our entire country and form of government is supposedly based!!! Does that lead you to feel safer? Perhaps it does, I suppose. But, doesn’t it make you feel just a wee bit more of a slave, now that the government has usurped your freedoms?

6. City To Be Watched By Permanent Eye In The Sky (PrisonPlanet)

Read the article here.


The Californian city of Lancaster will be the first to experience a “new era in law enforcement surveillance” with residents set to be watched by a permanent eye in the sky which will beam constant video footage back to police headquarters including crimes in progress as well as “scenes of mundane day-to-day life.”

My Take:

If you thought monitoring your phone calls, emails, and the front of your house was bad enough, how about everything you do in public?!? Well, yes, there will be fewer crimes when Big Brother can see what everyone is doing every minute of the day!

7. Whistleblower: NSA Analyzing Conversations In Real Time (PrisonPlanet)

Read the article here.


The National Security Agency is storing all electronic communications and analyzing them in real time, according to former NSA employee turned whistleblower William Binney, who warns that the federal agency has a Google-style capability to search all conversations for keywords.

Since 2008, the NSA has had the legal power to intercept all phone calls, emails and text messages sent by American citizens without probable cause. However, although long suspected, the agency has never admitted that it is analyzing the content of such messages, conceding only that persons, dates and locations are part of the snooping process.

However, in a recent sworn declaration to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Binney, a former NSA employee with the signals intelligence agency within the DoD, divulges that the federal agency, “has the capability to do individualized searches, similar to Google, for particular electronic communications in real time through such criteria as target addresses, locations, countries and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords, and phrases in email.”

Using as many as twenty data intercept centers throughout the United States which can each store an almost unimaginable quantity of information, Binney notes that, “The sheer size of that capacity indicates that the NSA is not filtering personal electronic communications such as email before storage but is, in fact, storing all that they are collecting.”

My Take:

Have you ever said anything you later regretted? Do you know anyone, perhaps a family member, who brings up past conversations and holds them against you like they were words you had used just today? Well, now the United Stated government has the capability of doing the same thing, only they have the aforementioned powers of the NDAA behind them, to throw you in jail forever over anything they dig up, basically. Reminds me of a scripture I once read in Isaiah 29:

20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cutoff:

 21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Satan is called “The Accuser” for a reason. (See Rev. 12:10.)

This quote from the article mentions “data intercept centers.” What could those be? In fact, they are the very same “fusion centers” mentioned in the opening article. We’ll get to them soon.

8. Speak up: US law enforcement to use Russian software to store millions of voices (RT)

Read the article here.


The US government has already proven its intent to see all evil, with the use of Orwellian programs like TrapWire. But it can now hear all evil too, as law enforcement agencies implement a tool able to store, analyze and identify voices in seconds.

‘Voice Grid Nation’ is a system that uses advanced algorithms to match identities to voices. Brought to the US by Russia’s Speech Technology Center, it claims to be capable of allowing police, federal agencies and other law enforcement personnel to build up a huge database containing up to several million voices.

When authorities intercept a call they’ve deemed ‘hinky’, the recording is entered into the VoiceGrid program, which (probably) buzzes and whirrs and spits out a match. In five seconds, the program can scan through 10,000 voices, and it only needs 3 seconds for speech analysis. All that, combined with 100 simultaneous searches and the storage capacity of 2 million samples, gives SpeechPro, as the company is known in the US, the right to claim a 90% success rate.

According to’s Ryan Gallagher, who spoke with SpeechPro president Aleksey Khitrov, the software is already being used in many different countries and for ‘noble causes’ only – like in Mexico, where Voice Grid helped identify and apprehend kidnappers during a ransom call, thus saving their victim’s life.

Both the FBI and the NSA have expressed interest in the program, which is also expected to be used at 911 call centers and police precincts. And sample lists would, of course, contain ‘persons of interest’ – known criminals, terror suspects or people on a watch list.

Or would it?

The definition of ‘suspect’ has been known to be loosely interpreted by US law enforcement agencies in the past. What with the FBI branding people as ‘terrorist suspects’ for buying waterproof matches or flashlights, and the Department of Homeland Security urging hotel staff to notify authorities immediately if a person has tried to use cash and/or hung a ‘do not disturb’ sign on their door, it’s easy to see why many are spooked by the idea that not only can the government see you at all times, it can also hear you.

In fact, combined with the capabilities of TrapWire, this would give law enforcement agencies an unprecedented ability to effectively dismiss both the country’s founding documents and any notion of privacy you may have had.

My Take:

No more fingerprint, mister smartypants! Now, we have your voice recorded, analyzed, and stored in our database to detect your verbal involvement in criminal activity. Gotcha! Oh, and the involvement of Russia should in no way concern you. (I should mention here that Russia Today is not an entirely trustworthy source, as it has ties to the KGB. However, since this news story has been reported on in other sources, it was safe to use.)

9. Philippines gags internet with ‘draconian’ cyber crime law (RT)

Read the article here.


The Philippines has approved measures to prosecute users that post “defamatory” comments on social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook. They will be liable for a fine of 1 million pesos (US$24,000) or face up to 12 years in prison.

Websites that publish the material may also be shut down.

My Take:

Remember that stuff I said earlier about “making a man an offender for a word,” and so forth? Yeah, it’s like that.

10. Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away (Gizmodo)

Read the article here.


Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you.

And without you knowing it.

The technology is so incredibly effective that, in November 2011, its inventors were subcontracted by In-Q-Tel to work with the US Department of Homeland Security. In-Q-Tel is a company founded “in February 1999 by a group of private citizens at the request of the Director of the CIA and with the support of the U.S. Congress.” According to In-Q-Tel, they are the bridge between the Agency and new technology companies.

Their plan is to install this molecular-level scanning in airports and border crossings all across the United States.

My Take:

This is one article you will want to read all the way through. Notice the “bridging” of agencies. This ties into the fusion centers and “privately owned corporations” mentioned in #1 below. Notice also the direct involvement of both the CIA and Congress to create and implement this technology.

Image: Wikipedia.

Fusion Centers

Fusion centers are designed to “fuse” data, bringing together data from a plethora of sources – Facebook, Google, email, texts, phone calls, surveillance cameras, fingerprints, etc. – and making them available as a complete package for use by government agencies. In other words, fusion centers create files on American citizens for the government, whether they are law-abiding or not. While they claim to be used to fight terrorism, the only notable information to come from fusion centers in recent years has been in reports issued to warn of the “terrorist threat” of anti-abortion advocates, Christians, Constitutionalists, and Ron Paul supporters.

I shared an excellent article from Wired Magazine about fusion centers in Breaking Down the Hedge (#1), that explains the sheer enormity of the data storage capabilities just one fusion center will have, which is understandable considering they plan on capturing everything everyone has ever said/written/done, for the rest of their existence.

1. The 72 Threat Fusion Centers Were Designed To Threaten You (InfoWars)

Read the article here.


There are 72 Threat Fusion Centers. 50 state based and 22 urban centers set up during the Bush presidency in cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. They collect information from all 16 US intelligence agencies, the CIA, FBI, the military, state and local police agencies and privately owned corporations and organizations like the ADL and SPLC which some say should be registered as agents of a foreign power Israel.

A lot of their information comes from contractors. So just how many contractors does DHS employ? Senator McCaskill said DHS doesn’t even know how many contractors there are working for them. Some estimate at one time there was as many as 200,000. If you understand bureaucracies and contractors, you will realize that these people need to justify their paychecks by finding terrorists. And that probably already includes you because you are on the Internet and have opinions.

My Take:

Article #7 above mentions “as many as twenty data intercept centers.” Mm-hmm. And, as always, Alex Jones tells it like it is. The involvement of the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) is disconcerting, as they tend to mislabel and misidentify organizations that are anything but “progressive” or otherwise left-leaning.

2. The Risks Homeland Security Fusion Centers Pose to Americans’ Civil Liberties (The Dissenter)

Read the article here.


The investigation found state and local agencies had used federal grant money to purchase “hidden ‘shirt button’ cameras, cell phone tracking devices, and other surveillance equipment unrelated to the analytical mission of a fusion center.”

A grant was awarded to the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 2009. Money went to the fusion center in Arizona, the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC), which purchased “equipment for a surveillance monitoring room.” A new laptop, software, two monitors and two 42” flat screen televisions were bought. This occurred despite guidelines that do not consider surveillance a part of fusion center operations.

The Office of General Counsel reminded Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) employees in April 2008 that DHS personnel “are prohibited from collecting or maintaining information on US persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the US Constitution, such as the First Amendment protected freedoms of religion, speech, press, and peaceful assembly and protest.”

It is also noted in the report, “The Privacy Act prohibits agencies from storing information on U.S. persons’ First Amendment-protected activities if they have no valid reason to do so…”

Also, the subcommittee noted the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) put out a report in February 2009, which led to “public outrage.” Purporting to provide analysis of the “modern militia movement,” it was “poorly researched and written” and alleged “militia members most commonly associate with third party political groups,” like the Libertarian Party. It stated these violent militias are typically composed of people who support Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and/or Bob Barr. It said these people might display signs, cartoons or bumper stickers with “anti-government rhetoric.” They might display the Gadsden flag or “anti-immigration and anti-abortion” messages.

…The findings are not abnormal. They reflect the fact that these fusion centers have often been used for neo-COINTELPRO operations.

What the subcommittee looked at were drafts not released. The ACLU has previously called attention to public reports released, which are similar to ones the subcommittee discovered were canceled:

  • A Texas fusion center released an intelligence bulletin that described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department and hip hop bands to spread Sharia law in the U.S.
  • The same month, but on the other side of the political spectrum, a Missouri Fusion Center released a report on “the modern militia movement” that claimed militia members are “usually supporters” of third-party presidential candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr.
  • In March 2008 the Virginia Fusion Center issued a terrorism threat assessment that described the state’s universities and colleges as “nodes for radicalization” and characterized the “diversity” surrounding a Virginia military base and the state’s “historically black” colleges as possible threats.
  • A DHS analyst at a Wisconsin fusion center prepared a report about protesters on both sides of the abortion debate, despite the fact that no violence was expected.

Like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) wrote in a “spotlight on surveillance” report in June 2007, “A national network of state fusion centers, working with the federal government, comes perilously close to a domestic surveillance agency, which has been rejected by the public and law enforcement officials.” There has been documented abuse:

In December 2003, just nine months after the Department of Homeland Security had been created, an officer from the DeKalb County, Georgia, Division of Homeland Security observed and photographed vegans who were peacefully protesting outside a Honey Baked Ham store. When two protesters noticed they were being photographed, they wrote down the license plate of the man’s unmarked government. After they refused to turn over the paper with the license plate number, the Homeland Security officer arrested them. In 2004, two plainclothes Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputies identified themselves as Homeland Security agents while monitoring a protest by striking Safeway workers.

In February 2006, two Montgomery County, Md., Homeland Security agents walked into a suburban Bethesda library, demanded the attention of all the patrons, and told patrons that viewing Internet pornography was illegal. It is not illegal to view pornography in a public library, and Montgomery County simply “asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites.” The Washington Post said, “After the two men made their announcement, one of them challenged an Internet user’s choice of viewing material and asked him to step outside, according to a witness. A librarian intervened . . . [and later a] police officer arrived. In the end, no one had to step outside except the uniformed men.” The men were later reassigned, but the incident raised questions about why exactly Maryland Homeland Security agents thought it part of their Homeland Security duties to enter a public library, survey the patrons, and then incorrectly tell patrons that their legal viewing habits were illegal acts.

In conclusion, the subcommittee report affirms the worst fears or concerns shared by civil liberties organizations. Indeed, its officials engage in operations similar to operations FBI agents engaged in during the days of COINTELPRO.

My Take:

This report is being painted as proving that fusion centers are just a bunch of idiots bungling their simple job of analyzing data, while in reality they are doing exactly what they were designed and intended to do. According to Wikipedia, “COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counterintelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.” Enough said.

Interestingly, the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most connected non-elected globalist agencies ever to influence the United States government, has a fluff piece on fusion centers on their official website. If you know anything about the CFR, this alone ought to raise an eyebrow.