In response to the audit, David E. Jones, the bar-certified sophist retained as Bernice’s town attorney, weaved a seamless web of persiflage, insisting that even though the
cabal that employs him “did not follow the strict technical requires for publication [of the traffic ordinance], the public clearly had constructive notice of the existence of the Bernice Penal Code….”

Jones’s claim, rendered in less opaque language, was that the town’s status as a well-known speed trap constituted legal “notice” of the practice. Buttressed with this spurious and self-serving assessment, the town’s trustees voted on May 14 not to grant refunds to victims of the illegal ticket scheme, thereby laying permanent claim to more than $100,000 in illegally collected revenue. 

Like nearly all official business conducted in Bernice, the May 14 vote took place in a meeting that was closed to the public, a practice typical of the cabal’s serial
violations of the Open Meeting Act. The audit described habitual violations of
that statute, each of which is a crime punishable by a year in the county jail
and a fine of up to $500.

Until recently, the Town Board – which conducts nearly all significant business in “executive session” – had forbidden citizens to participate in monthly town meetings. Subsequent to the audit, that policy was modified to permit three minutes to citizens who wish to speak, which is not to say that the Board will allow anything that is said to have any measurable effect on its decisions.

 “The atmosphere
in a Town Board Meeting is meant to intimidate and silence people,” commented Bernice
resident Steve Miller, who lives with his 72-year-old mother in Bernice, in an
interview with Pro Libertate. “When you go to a town meeting in Grove, which
isn’t far from here, there are no policemen, no security cameras. There is a
U.S. flag, an Oklahoma State Flag, microphones set up for each Council member
and for the citizens who wish to participate. Here in Bernice, however, there
are always armed and uniformed officers present, security cameras – and no mike
for public comments. It’s like going into a jail – or walking into a den of
thieves.”

Miller, a
consulting engineer by profession, is the civic-minded resident whose petition
drive resulted in the state audit. His involvement grew out of the harassment
suffered by his mother, Mary Zapf.

Starting in May
2010, Miller and his mother noticed that Delaware County Sheriff’s Deputies
“began patrolling our property daily,” Miller recalled to Pro Libertate. “Our
property is surrounded by three public streets, and I saw these deputies slowly
driving by constantly. I started taking their pictures and even got one of them
to talk to me briefly. I asked him why they were keeping our property under
surveillance; his reply was, `Because the mayor told me to.’”

With Miller’s
help, Mrs. Zapf was doing some construction and renovation on their property.
This included modifying a driveway that had been used as a short-cut by
motorists seeking to avoid a nearby intersection. 

On May 4 of
that year, Mayor Bill Raven visited Zapf to tell her that there was an
unspecified “problem” with her landscaping project, and to ask her to “hold off
until the town could get some things together.” Mrs. Zapf offered to have the
mayor discuss the renovation with the contractor, who was on-site; Raven
declined that invitation, insisting that he didn’t want to start a “fight.”

The following
day, Raven and the Town Board decided to take “emergency” action to deal with
supposed “zoning violations” on Zapf’s property. That matter, in typical
fashion, was discussed in “executive session” during the May 10 Board Meeting.
When it emerged from its secretive huddle the Board informed Zapf that no
action would be taken, because she had agreed to “hold off” on further
construction.

After waiting
for nearly a month to hear from the mayor and the board, Mrs. Zapf sent them a
letter announcing that she intended to resume work on her property. The
improvements were finished on June 4^th. Five days later, the Town
Board sued her for “trespassing” by allowing alterations on her own driveway. 

“The material
basis of their claim was that they had an easement on the driveway because at
some unspecified point in the past they had plowed it during the wintertime,”
Miller observes. “We went through one of the biggest snowstorms in Oklahoma
history a few years ago, and they never sent a plow.”

Shortly after
being informed of the town’s lawsuit against her, Mrs. Zapf visited the town
clerk’s office to request the agendas for the upcoming meetings of the Bernice
trustees and the Zoning Board – matters in which she had an obvious and urgent
interest.  Town Clerk Connie King, ever
the dutiful public servant, reacted to this eminently reasonable request by
slamming the door in Mrs. Zapf’s face. That prompted the long-suffering widow
to exclaim that the clerk was being a “stupid witch” – an epithet several
orders of magnitude milder than what might normally be employed in a situation
of that kind.

On the basis of
that remark, Mrs. Zapf received a citation on July 20 for “disturbing the
peace.” Although the only “witness” to Zapf’s supposed offense was the
officious personage on the other side the door she had slammed, a police report
was filed – two months after the incident – by two deputies who were not
present when it occurred. The fine listed on the summons was $195 – an amount
well in excess of the $85 prescribed in the fine and bond schedule.

“I knew the
trespass lawsuit was a malicious attempt by the mayor to seize land, as there
were no town residents … listed as plaintiffs,” Miller explained in his letter to the
state auditor.
“The harassment by the deputy sheriffs was an abuse of power by the mayor, and
an attempt to intimidate and coerce my mother into a submissive position. The
disturbing the peace accusation was false and intended to scare her away from
obtaining public records. The police summons was another attempt by the town to
intimidate a citizen. The fine was not only unfounded, it seemed excessive, so
I began my own investigation.” 

With the
analytical discipline of a trained engineer, Miller examined the city’s penal
codes and Delaware County Records to find out if this grotesque over-charge was
a vindictive anomaly, or part of a larger pattern. What he discovered – and the
independent state audit confirmed – was that the town had been in violation of
state statutes “for approximately 25 years.” 

 Publication of
the audit was greeted by the Bernice Town Board with what one participant in a
rare public meeting described as “smirks and laughs.” By that time, however, the
Delaware County Commission had cancelled its contract to provide deputy
sheriffs for traffic enforcement. This was done not because of developments in
Bernice, but rather because of “potential liability issues” arising from a
$13.5 million settlement reached with victims of sexual abuse by deputies in
the County Jail.

Complaints from
female inmates at the Delaware County Jail began to accumulate in March 2008,
many of them involving a part-time transport deputy named Bill Sanders, Sr.
Sanders, recalled the Tulsa World, “would
often take female inmates to `appointments’ without reporting his departing
mileage and time…. It was during many of these transports that inmates say they
were assaulted by Sanders and forced to perform sex acts.” 

Key elements of
the accusations were confirmed by a former county dispatcher, who also
described how the
former jail administrator, Lonnie Hunter, would “shake boxes of cigarettes
at the inmates to encourage them to flash their breasts at him.” (Two dispatchers
eventually
filed sexual harassment lawsuits of their own.) Some of the inmates
testified that both Sanders and Hunter would exchange cigarettes and other
coveted goods for sex. When confronted with a particularly intransigent inmate,
Sanders would simply assault her in the serene confidence that he would never
be held accountable.

“Now you said
you wouldn’t tell, and even if you did nobody would believe you, because you’re
just a drug addict,” he told one victim during a trip to the emergency room. “Who
are you compared to me?”

Sanders – who died
at age 63 of “natural causes” in November 2008, just after being fired and just
before the lawsuit was filed – was a part-time deputy who had no formal
training and no personnel file on record. When deposed for the lawsuit, Hunter,
Sanders’s supervisor, insisted that he was not responsible for the crimes
committed against helpless inmates: “My responsibility is to the last locked
door. After that, it’s up to the transport officer.”

Former Sheriff Blackfox. The OSBI gave Sheriff
Jay Blackfox a detailed report describing the sexual abuse suffered by more
than a dozen women by staff under his authority. In his deposition, Sheriff
Blackfox insisted that he wasn’t “aware” of what was happening in his jail,
because he had only read “part” of the OSBI’s report owing to his busy
schedule. 

Blackfox was
dismissed by County Commission at roughly the same time the Commission ended
its traffic enforcement contract with Bernice. This left the Bernice Town
Council with the perceived need to hire a police chief and create its own
police force to patrol a town with a population of fewer than 600 people. It
settled on a “gypsy cop” named Daniel
Travis Lowe, who had just been fired from his job as police chief of
Burden, Kansas – another town of roughly 600 people. 

New Eunice Police Chief Daniel  Lowe. At the time he
was hired by Bernice, Lowe was
still subject to a “diversion program” growing out of a domestic violence
incident involving his ex-wife, who was Burden’s Town Clerk. 

The terms of
that agreement specified that the charge would be dismissed if Lowe refrain
from criminal behavior for one year. Unfortunately, this refers only to unlicensed criminal behavior; becoming
chief enforcer for Bernice’s ruling clique wouldn’t qualify. News of Lowe’s
background provoked understandable controversy, which led to another Town
Meeting where the Board – acting in “executive session,” of course – ratified its
decision.

“There is
something oddly appropriate about the selection of this guy to be the chief of
police,” Steve Miller commented to Pro Libertate. “This is entirely typical of
the way things operate in this county.” In fact, the institutionalized sexual
abuse and related corruption that has festered in Delaware County is hardly
atypical of Oklahoma as a whole.

Over the past eight
years, tax
victims in three Oklahoma counties have been forced to pay more than $24
million to settle lawsuits arising from the routine sexual abuse of female
inmates.  Two former sheriffs — Melvin
Holly of Latimer County, and Mike Burgess of Custer County – have been given
prison terms of 25 and 79 years, respectively, for sexual assaults on
incarcerated women.

Melvin Holly. Holly told one
of his victims, a 19-year-old girl, that if she ever disclosed what happened
she would “end up dead somewhere, floating face-down in a river.” 

Burgess used
his position on the Custer County Drug Court to create what
was described as a “sex slave ring.” He told one woman who rebuffed his
advances that if she didn’t submit to him she would “not ever be able to see
her children until after they had grown up.” Another woman who resisted was
placed in lockdown, denied her medications, and forced to eat food that induced
rectal bleeding. 

Sales and
property taxes were increased to pay the settlements arising from lawsuits
filed by the victims. Next January, residents of Delaware County will suffer an
18 percent sales tax increase; all purchases will be taxed at 9.3 percent for
seventeen years. The $13.5 million settlement is an amount three
times larger than the county budget – and more than the construction price
of the jail where the sexual assaults occurred. 

Mike Burgess.
County Tax Assessor
Leon Hurt, whose name is one of God’s little Dickensian jokes, points out that
most of the people with whom he deals “are barely making it on their own
income. For them to see this extra impact … could be the last straw.”

Oklahoma is a
state in which piety has curdled into punitive sanctimony, which explains why
it has some
of the most stupid and vicious drug laws in the English-speaking world –
and, in per
capita terms, the
largest female prison population on the planet. Thanks to the wise and
perceptive people in the state legislature, however, residents can take comfort
in this thought: If their mother,
sister, or daughter commits
a trivial drug offense in Oklahoma, she may be caged by the government and
be pitilessly molested or even raped by her jailers, but at
least she won’t be forced to wear a burqa.

Dum spiro, pugno!

Article source: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2012/05/rape-of-delaware-county-oklahoma.html

Earlier this week, the federal government announced that the Air Force might be dispatching drones to a backyard near you. The stated purpose of these spies in the sky is to assist local police to find missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase bad guys.

If the drone operator sees you doing anything of interest (Is your fertilizer for the roses or to fuel a bomb? Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Are you smoking in front of your kids?), the feds say they may take a picture of you and keep it. The feds predict that they will dispatch or authorize about 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles across America in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, more than 300 local and state police departments are awaiting federal permission to use the drones they already have purchased — usually with federal stimulus funds.The government is out of control.

If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if while looking for a missing child the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/17/is-there-drone-in-your-backyard/#ixzz1vCxw3HyF

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.
—Marcus Tullius Cicero.

First of all let me make it clear that, as one of my friends put it, I am an equal opportunity offender.

The reason for this is because I have never seen much difference between Republicans and Democrats. To me, both parties are actually the two sides of the same counterfeited coin. That’s why many years ago I began calling it the Repucratic Party — the true and only Communo-fascist party in the coming totalitarian America.

The more I’ve tried to find differences between them, the less I’ve found.

For example, both Republicans and Democrats accept the minor lies told by the politicians of their party (Republicans believe in free trade, Democrats in global warming), as well as the big lies told by politicians of both parties (9/11/2001, War on Terror, death of bin Laden, Arab Spring, etc).

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have ever complained about the daily abuses committed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration.

None of them seem to care about the use of torture as a way to extract “confessions,” nor about the end of habeas corpus and posse comitatus or the expansion of the surveillance state.

Year after year, election after election, both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree, and have made an effort to convince us about it, that just by changing the puppets in the White House, while keeping the same scoundrels, rascals, cheaters, tax evaders, swindlers, scam artists, fraudsters, charlatans and scumbags of their party on the hill, everything will be okay in America.

Moreover, while Democrats chant the mantra of social justice, which is actually individual injustice, Republicans sing the siren’s song of national security, which, as it has now become evident, actually means national insecurity.

Still, there are minor differences that make me hate Republicans much more than I hate Democrats. Nevertheless, let me tell you first why I hate Democrats.

I hate Democrats because they are the enemy.

Democrats viscerally hate this country, its people, its Constitution, and almost everything that was good in America: its freedom, the right of its citizens to live their lives unmolested by an intrusive government trying to “help” them, the freedom to openly criticize their elected leaders without fear of reprisals, the respect for the laws of the land. Democrats are commies and don’t make any bones about it.

They loved Stalin and Mao, still love Castro, and now love Hugo Chávez and Obama.

But at least Democrats don’t hide their hatred for everything truly American. Over and over, they have openly told in clear and explicit ways that they hate America.

Michelle Obama expressed it clearly when she had a moment of candor and confessed that the only time she felt proud of being American was when Kenyan-born Barry Soetoro was selected by the Bilderberger conspirators to be the next president of the U.S.[1] Other Democrats, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jane Fonda, Maxine Waters, just to name a few, have expressed in deeds, and sometimes in words, their hatred for this country.

In this sense, I appreciate their sincerity.

On the other hand, I hate Republicans (including Tea Partiers, which are nothing but Republicans in disguise) because they are traitors and hypocrites. Currently, they are frantically trying to hide their love for Obama, who has provided them the wars they crave for so much.

Their total demoralization has manifested in the presidential debates where, after proving over and over that all them, except Ron Paul, are a bunch of unprincipled liars, they have attacked everybody and his uncle except Obama.

Despite their constant claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution, Republicans have always been eager to justify the trashing of the Constitution — provided the trashers are members of the Republican party. They loved it when George W. Bush approved the Patriot Act, one of the most antipatriotic laws ever signed by an American President, after having been passed without even a reading by a Congress with a Republican majority.

I fully understand why Democrats who hate this country elected Jerry Brown as governor of California. What is difficult to understand, however, is why Arizona Republicans re-elected John McCone to the U.S. Congress. CFR member McCain has shown many times his hatred for this country. While in Congress, he has supported almost every anti-American law ever conceived. His latest act of treachery is his support for the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill later signed into law by Obama.

A few months ago, while you were enjoying your turkey meal, the National Defense Authorization Act, another big jump into totalitarianism in the U.S., was approved by Congress. The approval was “bipartisan” and had full “conservative” support.

Given that in the cryptic language of the Washington politicians “bipartisan” actually means CFR sponsored, I bet that the National Defense Authorization Act, like most treasonous laws enacted by their Congress (the CFR conspirators have bought it, so it is theirs, not ours), was created in the secret conciliabula at the Harold Pratt House, headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The National Defense Authorization Act defines the entirety of the United States as a battleground in the War on Terror. Therefore, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the Government can label any American citizens as terrorists and they can be indefinitely detained without charge or trial. Similar laws have been enacted in most totalitarian countries. Now, why did John McCain and most Republicans senators support this bill? Beats me!

If one is to believe professional disinformer Sean Hannity, any of the Republican candidates is better than Obama. According to him, our motto should be “Anybody but Obama.” “I want to win,” said Hannity “and I want to win badly.”[2] He seems to forget that “anybody but Bush I” brought us Clinton, “anybody but Clinton” brought us Bush II, and “anybody but Bush II” brought us Obama. If doing the same and expecting a different result is a symptom of insanity, the U.S. has become an insane asylum.

Hannity’s idea is an example of politics as football. What is at stake today, however, is not the victory of your football team, but the survival of the American Republic. Actually, thanks to disinformers like Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, et. al., the election process is not even a football game, but a coin flipping one: heads we lose, tails they win!

Disagreement, particularly political disagreement, is part of the democratic, civilized way of living. Contradictory points of view among different individuals are a strong evidence of freedom and a very healthy feature of a democratic republic. Also, it is a normal fact of life that, with the passage of time, people change their views.

What is not acceptable, however, is contradictory points of view expressed at the same time by the same individual. Inconsistency is the mark of the opportunist and the liar. A better example of inconsistency than Republicans claiming one day that they support the Constitution and next day giving their vote of approval to a law that trashes it is difficult to find. This is precisely why most people don’t like politicians like the ones now running for the presidency.

Republicans claim that they are defenders of capitalism and free enterprise, but they love corporations, the main enemies of competition and true capitalism. When listeners complain about mega corporations not paying taxes, moving the jobs abroad or using semi-slave workers, disinformer extraordinaire Rush Limbaugh answers that they have not violated any U.S.

law. He never mentions, though, that big transnational corporations don’t need to violate the laws because they have greased the palms of corrupt lawmakers to pass the laws they need.

Republicans assert that they are anti-abortion, because human life is sacred, but they wait until their children are teenagers and send them to kill and be killed in foreign, unnecessary wars. These are inconsistencies bordering on hypocrisy.

Republicans profess that they are the strongest supporters of the U.S. military, but they remained silent when thousands of them died or were incapacitates for life as a result of bacteria in vaccines they were forced to take — the so-called “Gulf War Syndrome.” Nor have they complained for the government’s cover-up to hide the fact that it was done on purpose to purge the Army from patriotic, but potentially problematic Americans the conspirators didn’t trust.

In the same fashion, Republicans are famous for complaining about the high U.S. national debt, but they never mention the fact that one of the reasons why the government needs cash is to pay for the interest on the money it borrows to maintain the national (in)security state they love so much. As a matter of fact, Republicans are as addicted to warfare as Democrats to welfare.

As keepers of the integrity of the Republic, or so they contend, Republicans have always been in the first line against illegal immigration. However, despite their zeal to keep the border closed, they never criticized their beloved George W. Bush, the man who opened the borders to an alien invasion and harassed and prosecuted the border officers who tried to do their job.

Moreover, Republicans have always supported the idea of building a high wall to exclude the invaders. Apparently it never crossed their narrow minds that some day that very same wall could be used as a containment device to prevent Americans from escaping totalitarianism in their own country. Actually, the first step has been done with a law canceling passport rights for people who owe taxes. And, mark my words, very soon other excuses will be added to keep the sheep inside the barn.

Another good example of their inconsistency is the Republicans’ criticism of banks bailouts. According to them, and I fully agree about this particular issue, we should let nature run its course, and failed institutions should not be helped, because this will encourage failure, but let them pay dearly for their mistakes. But it is obvious that the Republican Party has failed miserably once and again.

Then, why are Republicans so eager to rescue it?

But the last straw that really made me mad as hell is their treatment of Ron Paul, and I don’t want to take it anymore.

Since the very beginning of the present presidential campaign, Republicans have shown that if there is a person they really don’t want to see in the White House, that is Ron Paul. To avoid it, they have resorted to every trick in the book to sabotage Paul’s campaign.

While Paul’s arguments about really important things have been ignored, Republicans have wasted their time talking about Obamacare (which is actually Hillarycare, which was actually Rockefeller care), illegal immigration (a non-issue, currently Mexicans are escaping back to their country), health care (which is a disaster precisely because of government intervention),[3] well, you name it.

Apparently, they seem to ignore that what is at stake in this crucial moment of this country’s history is not if we have a border fence, or a health care system even worse than the one we now have, or Mexicans (and some Americans too) escaping back to a better life in Mexico, but if the coming society will be a fascist or a communist one. And I assure you that, except for their preference for black swastikas or red hammers and sickles in their banners, there is no big difference between either totalitarian system.

It seems that the professional media disinformers have already decided behind our backs that the only possible alternative we have in this coming election is either a disaster named Obama or a future disaster named Romney. Contrary to their claims, however, we do have another alternative: neither of them!

Currently, we have a unique opportunity to drop the bankrupt Repucratic Party where it belongs: the trash can of History. As Ron Paul recently stated, “The country is ripe for revolution.”[4] I fully agree with Congressman Paul, and we’d better do it fast before this unique window of opportunity closes, because the Repucratic carcass is rotting, and the stench is becoming nauseating.

All things considered, I think that if at some time we realize that there is no way to put Ron Paul in the White House, Obama, not Romney or any other Republican candidate, should be our second best option.

Yes, I prefer Obama in the White House rather than any Republican. Let me tell you why.[5]

As I have explained in detail in my book Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People, contrary to communists or fascists, whose tactic is to take political power overtly by quick, violent means, the New World Order conspirators have adopted the tactics of the British Fabians: taking control covertly, by slow, gradual infiltration.

Evidence shows they have been very successful at infiltrating the U.S. government, the courts, the system of public education, the academia, the mainstream press and the U.S. armed forces — I didn’t mention the CIA, because since its creation the Agency has been an obedient tool in the hands of the CFR conspirators.

Of lately, however, they have encountered unexpected resistance from the masses. Speaking in May 2001 at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Montreal, CFR agent Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.[6]

Apparently, the CFR conspirators have become a little nervous about not been able to accomplish their deadline of having a global New World Order by early 21st century, and this rush has made them make grave mistakes. One of them has been placing their puppet Obama in the White House.

It is not a secret that, following his masters’ orders, Obama’s long, quick steps to push America into totalitarianism has caused an awakening of a large sector of the American people, galvanizing them to action in ways we have never seen before in the recent history of this country.

Probably the only good thing Obama’s rule has accomplished is to turn things in America so bad and so fast, that it has awakened the people’s consciousness from its media-induced stupor. In this sense, by acting as an alarm clock, he has done us a big favor. Electing a CFR-controlled Republican will put the people to sleep again.

On the other hand, do some honest Republicans truly believe that corrupt CFR puppet Mitt Romney would be better than corrupt CFR puppet Barack Obama? I don’t think so.

The fact that the CFR conspirators have been desperately pushing first their puppet Newt, then Perry and now Romney is a clear indication that they are concerned about the possibilities of success for their plans to fully implement the Communo-fascist New World Order in America.[7] Currently, the two main obstacles the conspirators face are a free Internet and gun ownership, and they will do everything in their power to eliminate freedom of speech and an armed populace as soon as possible.

In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the government confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens who owned them legally. But they didn’t have to pry their guns from their dead, cold fingers — gun owners willingly surrendered their guns to the Louisiana National Guard. Of course, I guess that if a Democrat would have been in the White House things may have been different. But their beloved George W. Bush gave the orders, and the ever faithful Republicans complied.

The elimination of the current Internet, and its substitution by a controlled, censored one is relatively easy. [8] The justification will be a false flag cyberatttack, and it can be done under a Democratic president. But gun prohibition and confiscation is much more risky and it can only be done by a Republican President. A Republican President will easily recreate a Fast and Furious false flag operation as a pretext for passing a gun confiscation law and most Republican gun owners will comply. Is Romney the right guy for the job? I don’t think we should wait and see.

Somebody said that war was too important to leave it in the hands of the military. Well, today that the U.S. government has become a Leviathan avid to control all aspects of our lives, I would say that politics is too important to leave it in the hands of the politicians — particularly in the hands of corrupt, anti-American politicians of the Repucratic Party.

Therefore, instead of “anybody but Obama,” my motto in the coming elections is “anybody but a Repucrat.” If you love this country and want to live in it as a free man,[9] please, make this motto yours. Actually, by participating in this corrupt electoral process we are, wittingly or unwittingly, helping to legitimize the charade. If, by voting for an independent candidate or not voting at all we fail to get the government we want, at least we can have the clear conscience that we didn’t contribute to the mockery.

It is obvious that Republicans will never allow Ron Paul to become their candidate in this coming election. Dr. Paul’s plans are nothing less than overturning the government’s apple cart, and Republicans hate him for this. Unfortunately, and I hope I am wrong, it seems that Paul has decided not to keep fighting if he loses the nomination. If this happens to be the case, I suggest that we focus our efforts to try to convince him to run as an independent. Ron Paul is our only hope for a peaceful solution to the problems we face as a nation.

Some months ago Jesse Ventura offered to run as Paul’s vice-president if Ron Paul decided to run as an independent. I think that the combination of Paul-Ventura is a winning, unbeatable one.

Both of them have demonstrated over the years their honesty and love for this country. Even more, they scare the shit out of the New Word Order conspirators. They fear them as much as they hate them.

If Paul and Ventura reach an agreement and they decide to run as independents, there is only one way the conspirators can stop them, but they know that they have to be very careful about using that last-resort option.

If they go for it, the conspirators may start an unstoppable chain reaction of unforeseeable consequences, none of which would be good for them.

If, for any reason, the result of the coming election is four more years of Obama in the White House, good for us.

A Republican in the White House will only put the people to sleep, while the conspirators will keep feverishly working in the shadows for the destruction of this country. Anyway, I have the gut feeling that, one way or another, Obama will not spend four more years in the White House.

After the popular vote brought Salvador Allende to power in Chile, CFR agent and war criminal Henry Kissinger said “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” In the same fashion, we Americans don’t need to stand by and watch our country to go Communo-fascist due to the irresponsibility or ill intentions of both Democrats and Republicans.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, what type of government the Constitution had created. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Let’s show the New World Order conspirators, their minions and the World, that we have what is needed to save this Republic and keep it alive and kicking!

———-

Notes:

Servando’s next book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, will appear in June. He is already working on his next book, The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the American People: A Chronology of Treason, which he plans to have ready by the end of this year.

The Department of Defense has been planning and readying to clamp down on American citizens. Under the faux pretext of ensuring your safety the Defense Department’s plans to fully command & control the “homeland” from domestic unrest. Its plan to fully take over in an event of national emergency has been on the wishlist of the globalist for years. The Continuity of Government plan established all the necessary procedures to fully unleash the shadow government. This powder keg of tyranny needs a spark, an excuse that will unleash the nefarious takeover by the traitors . The plan is no longer shielded in secrecy or denial. In fact, the DOD has rolled its PSYOP to acclimate the American slaves to love martial law. Recently, a U.S. army manual document exposed the military’s plan to imprison political activist in reeducation camps. The plan states that FEMA, DHS, ICE will implement policies within the U.S. in case of a man-made disaster, terrorist attack or

“incidents in the U.S. and its territories.” (page 38).

As shocking as this army manual may be the authenticity of the has been confirmed, and it applies to Americans. In fact, prisoners are to be identified by their Social Security-proving once more this is for Americans.

This has been the plan since the very beginning of the total takeover of America. To imprison American citizens in concentration camps. Look up REX84. In south Florida black helicopters simulated storming a building in the middle of the night. The joint military and police drill terrorized the community. Meanwhile, the State controlled media thought it was a “cool tourist, story” because memes are hip, trendy and don’t cause the public to get alarmed.

In Minnesota fully armed U.S. troops patrolled a quiet neighborhood.

Glancing at her briefly one Soldier responded, “Just training Ma’am. Joining up with another patrol at the rally point.” Not accepting this as a reasonable answer to her inquiry, Magge went on, “Oh, ok. What are you training on the streets of town for exactly?” At that the young soldier replied, “To be honest ma’am, I don’t know.” Source: The Libertarian Review (http://s.tt/1asa1)

Weeks ahead of the NATO summit the Federal Government instituted a militarized red zone and a no fly zone over Chicago with shoot-to-kill orders for violators. The Illinois DOT will use its

“emergency plan to shut off access into and out of downtown Chicago”.

Colleges, community centers, the Red Cross have been turned intodetention centers in preparation for a city-wide evacuation of Chicago in an event of violence and riots. While these institutions ready blankets, food and showers for thousands of evacuees the Secret Service denies any plans for evacuating the city. Despite public outcry unannounced heavily armed security teams are parading, I mean “patrolling”, outside federal buildings in the downtown area weeks ahead of the NATO summit. Meanwhile, Rahm Emanuel busies himself with revoking protest “licenses”. The very same guy who called for mandatory civil service, aka slavery. The same vulture whosaid, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. This gun-grabbing vulture will further the globalist agenda to indoctrinate the plebs to love U.S. military uniforms, black helicopters and tyranny.

Keep in mind this event can be defined “national significant event” with paramilitary troops patrolling the area. The NDAA, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act are in effect and this event will give a perfect excuse to use them. The NATO summit alongside with other military drills in other parts of the U.S. are theatrical. The soft-landing of martial law in various parts of the country are a training exercise for the public. The public is being conditioned to slowly accept martial law as normal. Because everyone know a free and open society normally has paramilitary troops perch atop black helicopters stirring up terror in the midst of night.

By the time you read this, I’m probably little more than a glob of metal, like so many millions of my brothers and sisters. And I did nothing wrong. For a while, I blamed my owner—didn’t he know that the TSA wouldn’t let him take me on an airplane? But, of course he did. In fact, his diligence in trying to protect me is partly responsible for the mental slip that flipped me into the box with all the other innocents, victimized by the bureaucratic absurdity of US airport security rules. Yet, avoiding that slip would have meant keeping me in a dark drawer, and, for a pocket knife, that is a life not lived.

I know this because my owner had held on to me for 27 years. I know exactly when I was born, because I was a loving gift from his girlfriend and future wife. And I was practical, which made the thoughts behind her gift all the more special to my owner. And it gave me purpose. We’ve been through a lot: I have scraped ice from the nozzles of frozen hose couplings used to make snow at a ski area in subzero weather. I have stripped electrical wire forty feet in the air. I have cut scores of feet of duck tape for various types of repairs. I’ve opened hundreds of presents and gifts under Christmas trees and at birthday parties. I opened the box to my owner’s first published novel. Most recently, I opened the boxes of local authors at a spring festival, releasing fresh ideas and creative genius onto an unsuspecting public. I reveled in the joy and satisfaction I brought to my owner, his children, and the scores of people I helped, even in the smallest ways, through their everyday lives.

But there are some things that my owner and I never did. We never cut a person or animal. I was never opened out of anger. I was never used to threaten, cajole or intimidate. My owner simply would not have done that. I should know since, until that sad day in April, I was his companion for more than half of his life.

I have every reason to be livid at my owner. How could he let this happen?

One look on his face when the TSA agent pulled me from his backpack was enough for me to comprehend the emotional pain his oversight caused. My anger melted with his hopes and dreams. Gone was the surety of knowing I would be there to help him with tasks simple and big. Gone was the warm comfort of being there at holidays and birthdays. Gone was the plan that I would be passed down to his son at the right time. And, most importantly, gone was a cherished symbol of affection that he had so carefully protected until that fateful error at the airport.

And the TSA security guard knew, too: Seeing my owner’s expression, he asked him twice if he wanted to go back and mail it home. And my heart sank along with his dispirited voice as my owner uttered the inevitable “no.” He had already waited in line too long, and if he went back through security he would miss his plane. Cancelling meetings and paying hundreds of dollars in rebooking fees was simply too much, even with our long attachment and personal bond.

No, I am not angry at my owner. I am not even angry at the TSA employee. I am angry at the TSA. Despite all the technology available to them and other law enforcement agencies, they couldn’t figure out that a middle-aged man in a stable marriage, with no criminal record, with two decades of steady professional employment, two well-adjusted teenage kids, and more than 500,000 frequent flier miles under his belt was not a threat to himself or the passengers on that plane. In fact, to the TSA, my owner was indistinguishable from the Jihadists that murdered thousands of innocents more than a decade ago. He was invisible, not even a cog in the wheel. He was a nonperson, without rights or claims to civil liberties. In that airport, he lived a life contingent on the good graces of government and its bureaucratic rules, not his record or good deeds or contributions to society.

Perhaps the only thing worse than the absurdity of my confiscation is the fact the TSA consciously and self-righteously tramples on the very civil liberties that this nation was founded to protect. The consequence of these petty tyrannies is not just my demise, but a break in the very bonds that keep humans and families together. They sap the willpower and personal strength of a civil society founded to stand up against larger tyrannies. And they cede the power of life, freedom, and mobility to the rule followers and the small minds that can’t distinguish between real and imagined threats to persons and property. I deserve better. My owner deserves better. Americans deserve better. But it’s too late for me.

Imagine you’re living in the 15th Century. You’re witnessing a revolution that will profoundly change the world. This revolution doesn’t involve swords and cannons, but rather words and books. The cause of this upheaval is the most important invention in more than a thousand years: the printing press, by Johannes Gutenberg.

Within a few decades of its launch, you see the printing press transform the field of bookmaking in ways previously unimaginable. Printed books are far easier, faster, and less costly to produce than the books that had preceded them, which had to be laboriously copied, one page at a time, by hand. In the time it took to copy one page by hand, the printing press could turn out hundreds or thousands of copies of that same page, thereby making it possible for the first time in history for almost anyone to own books. Within a century of its creation, the printing press will spread throughout Western Europe, producing millions of books, spurring the economic development of industries related to it, such as papermaking, and spreading literacy and knowledge around the world. The printing press will make possible the rapid development of education, science, art, culture – and the rise of mankind from the Medieval period to the Early Modern age.

Let us further imagine that not everyone in the 15th Century is happy about this innovation. Unable to match the benefits of the printing press, the producers of hand-copied books are outraged. The scribes are being put out of business. The penmanship schools that train the scribes, the quill makers that supply their pens, and the manufacturers of the stools and drafting tables that literally support them are seeing a drop in sales. The hand-copied books are now priced too high to compete with the Gutenberg press, so their publishers are experiencing no growth, with no new capital coming into their industry. The sales force for the hand-copied books is also in despair, with their customers now ordering the new printed books from the Gutenberg people, and their lost income being money they can no longer put into their communities. Alas, the monopolistic monster, the printing press, is taking over.

The hand-copied book interests complain bitterly to the Great Sages at their Hallowed Council of Justice. “Sires,” they cry, “you must stop the predatory pricing and scorched earth policies of the Gutenberg press. It’s wiping out the competition. How can this be in the public interest?”

Fast-forward to the 21st Century, and we see another revolution that is turning the book industry topsy-turvy – the transformation from printed books to electronic ones. This revolution is spearheaded by a modern-day Gutenberg, Amazon.com, the pioneer of the e-book, the Kindle device for reading it, and the online marketplace for publishing and selling it.

What Amazon has accomplished is truly amazing. With Kindle, it has eliminated the industry middlemen that come between the writer and reader of a book – from agents to publishers to distributors to wholesalers to brick-and-mortar bookstores. Kindle has also eliminated the need for a physical inventory of books, with its high printing, warehousing, and shipping costs. These innovations have resulted in far less expensive books now available to consumers. And the new marketplace of e-books has been especially advantageous for small and self-publishers unable to get their books accepted through the traditional channels, who now have an avenue open to them for reaching customers directly.

The popularity of these ground-breaking innovations is enormous, with Kindle books now outselling the combined total of all paperback and hardcover books purchased from Amazon.

Without any middlemen or gatekeepers, with virtually no costs involved, and with self-marketing possible through social media and other Internet channels, electronic publishing is creating a robust market for new writers and books. For example, one novelist who was unable to find an agent or publisher has self-published two of her novels on Kindle. With her books priced at $2.99 and with a 70-percent royalty from Kindle, she earns approximately $2 per book. She is selling 55 books per day, or 20,000 books per year, which amounts to sales of $60,000 and royalties to her of $40,000. (As a simple comparison, without getting into the complexities of book contracts, this author might earn a royalty of approximately 10-percent from a traditional publisher, which would require her to achieve sales of $400,000 to earn as much money as she does self-publishing on Kindle.) Other authors are doing even better, including two self-published novelists who have become members of the Kindle Million Club in copies sold. These writers started with nothing – they were not among the favored few selected by agents and trade publishers, and they had no publicists or book tours – yet, thanks to electronic publishing, they are making a living, with some achieving stunning success.

The low-pricing of e-books, scorned by the traditional publishing interests, is the emerging writer’s new ticket of admission into the book industry. While readers may be highly reluctant to risk $25 in a bookstore to try a new writer’s hardcover work, they are buying the e-books of new writers priced at or around $2.99 on Kindle. Writers are finding their fans and making money at these prices, and readers, judging by Amazon’s “customer reviews,” are happy with these low-cost books.

The writer-publisher in America dates back to our founding, promoting vigorous free speech and intellectual entrepreneurship. Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, both best-sellers in their day, were self-published. If the American Dream is to start with nothing but one’s own talent, motivation, and hard work, and from that achieve success, then in recent times this dream was essentially closed to writers who failed to win the favor of the agents and trade publishers. Prior to the e-book revolution and online marketing spurred by Amazon, there was a stigma attached to self-publishing, despite its long and distinguished tradition in America. The major trade reviewers would not consider a self-published book, which meant that libraries and bookstores, which order based on the reviews, would not carry it. Now, e-books are not only taking the stigma out of self-publishing, but arguably making it the preferred route. Amazon has opened the avenue to pursuing the intellectual’s American Dream once again.

Yet the same medieval attacks projected above against the printing press are now being launched against Amazon, with the attackers imploring the modern-day “sages” at the Justice Department to stop the new menace called Amazon.

Leading the charge back to the Middle Ages is The New York Times. Two articles appearing on the front page of its business section on April 16, 2012 illustrate what happens when the Luddites, i.e., those hostile to technological development, meet the statists, i.e., those who look to achieve their ends through government force.

“Daring to Cut Off Amazon” by David Streitfeld praises a publisher-distributor for pulling its printed books out of Amazon. (Not only does Amazon discount e-books, but also the printed books it so successfully sells.) The company is Educational Development Corporation, whose CEO Randall White laments, “Amazon is squeezing everyone out of the business. . . . They’re a predator. We’re better off without them.”

One of Mr. White’s concerns was that his sales people were losing business because their customers were buying the company’s books cheaper from Amazon. Sales consultant Christy Reed comments about her local customers: “Yes they got the books for less [from Amazon]. But my earnings go back into our community. Amazon’s do not.” It apparently didn’t occur to her that by buying books cheaper on Amazon, her former customers have more money to spend in her community, and the Amazon staff who replaced her have more money to spend in their communities. But where spending does or doesn’t take place is not the main economic point. The real point is that for the same total spending in the economic system as a whole, people now obtain more books and have money left over to buy more of other things.

“Book Publishing’s Real Nemesis” by David Carr cites the recent antitrust suit brought by the Justice Department against five publishers and Apple, charging they engaged in the price-fixing of e-books. Instead of condemning this police action against production and trade, Mr. Carr bemoans the fact that the strong arm of the law didn’t go far enough to grip the “monopolistic monolith” Amazon, which “has used its market power to bully and dictate.” Mr. Carr considers it bullying and dictating when a private company (Amazon) sets its terms, and other players (the publishers) are free to do business with it or not. But it’s not bullying and dictating when the compulsory power of the state intervenes to set economic terms and punish businesses arbitrarily?

Mr. Carr quotes Authors Guild president and best-selling author Scott Turow, who worries that the club of authors and publishers will shrink. (Really?) “It is breathtaking to stand back and look at this and believe that this is in the public interest,” complains Mr. Turow about Amazon’s success. He also wonders if Amazon will drive the price of books so low that there will be “no one left to compete with them.” Apparently the “public interest” doesn’t include the millions of customers who choose to buy the mother load of affordable e-books from Amazon and who may not welcome his solicitous concern over the low prices they’re paying. And apparently the “public interest” doesn’t include the fresh crop of new authors now sprouting through e-books, without the benefit of the major publishers and lucky breaks that he had.

The Luddite tone of the attacks against Amazon rings like the following: The electric light will replace the candle. The car will replace the horse-and-buggy. The cure for tuberculosis will put the sanatoriums out of business. The computer will replace the typewriter. The statist element lies in the attackers’ desire to enlist the police power of the state to stifle the competition and artificially prop up their businesses.

Granted, it may be disappointing and painful for those whose jobs are thinning out or becoming obsolete due to technological advancements, but that can’t justify government intrusion. Morality is on the side of the people engaged in voluntary trade and against those who urge the Justice Department’s encroachment into their industry. The charges levied against Amazon – as a predator, monopolist, bully, etc. – actually do not apply to a company engaged in voluntary trade, no matter how big its market share, but rather to those trying to preserve their interests through government action. In the case of Amazon, the ones trying to restrain trade are the attackers, themselves. Moreover, not only is morality on the side of Amazon, but so too are the long-run material self-interests of everyone in the economic system. Everyone working will earn money, but, thanks to Amazon, and every other innovator of better products or more efficient methods of production, the buying power of the money he earns will be greater. The enemies of productive innovators are, by the same token, anti-social enemies of the general buying public.

The complaints lodged against Amazon would be harmless if the complainers could not use the government to advance their cause. But they can, through antitrust laws. These laws give the state the power to evaluate the price of a company’s product in relation to its competition and to punish companies – severely and arbitrarily – for prices deemed to be unacceptable. If a company’s price for its goods is deemed to be too low, it can be punished for being predatory and destructive of competition. If the price is deemed to be the same as its competitors, it can be punished for collusion and price-fixing. If the price is deemed to be too high, it can be punished for being monopolistic.

Using antitrust laws against the book industry poses an additional grave danger over and above their use against other industries. Because the book industry represents the dissemination of knowledge and ideas, an attempt to regulate the price of books abridges the free flow of ideas and violates our First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

Anyone interested in the survival of a robust book industry – or any other industry – with the free flow of products, the creativity of new business methods, and the preservation of economic freedom and property rights, must support the repeal of these oppressive laws.

The market – comprising the voluntary decisions of millions of free people – determines the pricing of books, the form a book will take, the device it will be read on, the winners and the losers of the competition. If the market chooses an innovative technology and a new direction, then so be it. Let the Medieval bookmakers copying their books by hand and their contemporary counterparts using needless paper and ink, warehouses, delivery trucks, and bookstores, adopt the advances or quit! Totally unlike competition in the animal kingdom, in which the losers are eaten or die of starvation, the losers of an economic competition do not die. At worst, they must relocate in the economic system at a lower level. But in an economic system free enough rapidly to progress, as ours has been for most of the last two and a half centuries, even the lowest paid workers enjoy a standard of living that surpasses that of the kings and emperors of earlier ages. This is why the Gutenbergs of the world must be left free to dream, to create, and to trade without fear of punishment.

by CBC News

Canada’s biggest banks accepted tens of billions in government funds during the recession, according to a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Canada’s banking system is often lauded for being one of the world’s safest. But an analysis by CCPA senior economist David Macdonald concluded that Canada’s major lenders were in a far worse position during the downturn than previously believed.

Macdonald examined data provided by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the big banks themselves for his report published Monday.

It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak. That works out to $3,400 for every man, woman and child in Canada, and also to seven per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product in 2009.

Read more here.

What does it take to be officially designated a “stalker” in the State of Oregon?

In a recent decision the State Court of Appeals ruled that a bully can subject a terrified elderly woman to a years-long campaign of harassment, intimidation, and physical violence without being saddled with a stalking protection order (SPO). Two years ago, the same court ruled that an individual can commit repeated acts of property damage, coupled with physical assaults and even an explicit death threat, and not qualify for stalker status.

The cat just stuck his head into the canary cage and is eyeing his next feathered meal. I keep warning people about the government’s plans to take your electronic digits. Remember the DTCC. But nobody listens.

Uncle Sam, in a desperate attempt to fix its $16 trillion-plus deficit, is leering over Americans’ retirement nest egg as its new bailout fund.

Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k) accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting the mortgage tax deduction.

A commission looking for ways to close the deficit, and, noting the extent of 401(k) tax breaks, recommends an examination of the system as one way to prevent government bankruptcy.Besides 401(k)s, other possibilities include the mortgage-interest deduction on second homes, as well as benefits from employer-provided health insurance, which are untaxed now.

Under current 401(k) rules, total employee/employer contributions can’t exceed $50,000. In the proposed rule change, employer/employee contributions would be limited to 20 percent of the employee’s compensation, with a maximum of $20,000, the so-called 20/20 proposal.

Another proposal being discussed in Congress says all tax deductions on 401(k)s and IRAs to be replaced with an 18 percent credit. The credit, according to a proposal that has been endorsed by economist William Gale, would be placed directly in a person’s retirement account.

“Unlike the current system,” Gale told Congress, “workers’ and firms’ contributions to employer-based 401(k) accounts would no longer be excluded from income and would be subject to taxation, contributions to IRAs would no longer be tax-deductible and any contributions to a 401(k) plan would be treated as taxable income.”

In other words, the employee and employer would no longer get a deduction under the Gale plan, they would qualify for a credit. And the credit would “increase [government] revenues by about $458 billion,” Gale says.

Last week a group of retirement industry experts went to Capitol Hill to criticize these proposed changes in retirement-plan rules. “These changes could have unintended consequences,” warns Lynn Dudley of the American Benefits Council (ABC).

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about the proposals, Randolf Hardock, of ABC’s board of directors, said, “[The idea] could seriously undermine the retirement savings system.”

Jack VanDerhei, research director of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), believes either of the two proposed 401(k) changes under review would have a “catastrophic” effect on the current retirement saving system.

The 20/20 plan provisions curtailing non-taxable contributions would freeze out many higher-paid employees from signing up for a 401(k), which could lead some companies, according to critics, to question if plans would still be worth offering employees.

Reducing retirement-plan contributions for those at the higher end of the wage scale will inevitably have a bad effect on those in the middle and at the bottom, ABC’s Dudley says.