Tag: Politics

The Agenda-Part Seven

What if we allow these mostly baseless charges of “racism” or Nazism” or “stereotyping and bias” or sexism” or “xenophopia” to bring discussion and debate to stop? What if “offensive” speech is deemed “unacceptable” and is silenced, first through social pressure and later through the force of law?

Reposted from February 22, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan — Part 7: Stifle debate and force consensus; Identify; isolate and surveil opposition and their leaders. Threaten them with sedition. Criminalize dissent. Denigrate and ridicule American traditions and moral values.

There is a lot of talk these days, in the social media, on television and radio, in print media and on college campuses about free speech. Most of this talk is not worth very much. Especially when those who have been conditioned by the virus of “political correctness are confronted by an ethos opposed to their own that we find just how “intolerant” those who preach tolerance really are.

The cultural script of American society has changed drastically from what was considered the behavioral norm from WW II through the mid-1960’s. Here is a short list:

-Get married BEFORE you have children.
–Stay committed to the marriage if for no other reason than to provide stability for the children.
–Get the education you need to get and keep gainful employment.
–Work hard and avoid idleness.
–Go the extra mile for your employer or client.
–Be a patriot ready to serve your country.
–Be neighborly.
–Avoid coarse and vulgar language in public.
–Be charitable
–Be respectful of authority.
–Avoid substance  abuse and criminal behavior.

These societal norms defined the concept of what a responsible adult was. They were the major contributor to the productivity, educational gains and social coherence of the “Post-war baby boom”.

While ridiculed by the socially permissive culture of today, driven by the agenda of the societal elites, re-embracing that cast aside culture would go a long way toward addressing the social pathologies that plague our present society.

Not all cultures are equal in the preparation of people to be productive citizens in today’s society. The culture of the Lakota native Americans, for example, was designed for nomadic hunters and gatherers. The skills taught are not suitable for survival in our 21st. Century environment.

Neither are the single-parent, anti-social habits prevalent among some blue collar Whites. Nor is the “anti-acting-White” rap culture of inner-city Blacks or the “anti-assimilation” ideas prevalent among Hispanic and Muslim immigrants useful or productive.

So, what is likely to be the outcome if dissent and opposition are denigrated, shouted down and/or criminalized? What if we, as a society, continue to abandon those ethics and principles that made the United States “the shining beacon on the hill” to so many?

What if the progressive analysis of inequality is wrong and the norms of responsible adult behavior of the “Post-War baby boomers” and their parents was right?

What if we allow these mostly baseless charges of “racism” or Nazism” or “stereotyping and bias” or sexism” or “xenophopia” to bring discussion and debate to stop? What if “offensive” speech is deemed “unacceptable” and is silenced, first through social pressure and later through the force of law?

What if George Orwell was right and we willing forged our own chains of slavery to the Newspeak where the politically correct was the source of “Bellyfeel” “Goodthink” and adherence to responsible adult behavior and ethics is “Thoughtcrime”?

1984 instruction manual

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part Six

To know what is right and yet continue to follow the old 1960’s dictum of “if it feels good, go it!” shows we are no longer deceived but simply willful. If we choose to follow the “easier, softer way promised by the elites we have no excuse.

Reposted from February 21,2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan — Part Six: Associate Judeo-Christian ethics and Constitutional advocacy with a backward and extremist and intolerant world view. Portray those who advocate gun rights and the second amendment as violent and prone to be anti-social and terrorists.

“You might be a Domestic Terrorist If” you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is not a joke. You might also be a terrorist if you have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother. Are you a Christian who has ever discussed the anti-Christ, the apocalypse, or even mentioned the book of Revelation? Guess what, according to the DHS during the previous administration then you too qualify as a potential domestic terrorist.

During the George W. Bush administration and intensified by the administration of Barack Hussein Obama policing has experienced a shift in focus from local community to a “federally dominated model of complete social control” coming out of, not surprisingly, Homeland Security. More specifically, the long-reaching DHS arms of TSA and FEMA have been pushed heavily to local law enforcement.

The most disturbing thing is the scope of domestic intelligence activities taking place today. Domestic spying is now being done by a host of federal agencies (FBI, DOD, DHS, DNI) as well as state and local law enforcement and even private companies.

Too often this spying targets political activity and religious practices. There are documented intelligence activities targeting or obstructing First Amendment-protected activity in at least 33 states and Washington DC.

The globalist elites, through their propaganda arm, the media, believe that We the People of the USA are a wildly dangerous group.

In fact, they think terrorists are lurking everywhere in America, waiting to attack. It is my firmly held belief that this ongoing preemptive attack on patriots and gun rights is because we love America, that we talk about and write about the worrisome facts of our great country becoming the land of surveillance and distrust, the place where neighbors are encouraged to report neighbors, and where local law enforcement is being told to be on the lookout for terrorists lurking all over their communities.

There is a concerted effort to remove the means of self defense from the general populace while the elites live in their gated communities protected by heavily armed security while children in the inner city are falling to drug addiction and gang violence.

In a 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “The Obsolete Man,” a librarian in a police state, played by the late Burgess Meredith, is executed for the crime of believing in God. In his 1967 memoir, Tortured for Christ, Richard Wurmbrand describes how Soviet guards would tell prisoners, “I thank God in whom I don’t believe. Now I may indulge the evil in my heart” (p. 34).

Faced with such dismal levels of public approval, atheists felt the need to show believers that they were good people and not amoral communists. Beginning in the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Kurtz promoted what he called “secular humanism,” which focused on promoting human well-being without religion rather than converting people to atheism.

Our society has become imbued with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

When the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic church responding to a question regarding homosexuals responds; “The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge?”
we can be very sure that there has been a sea-change in the religious, ethical and moral climate of our society.

An important principle in human law is that ignorance of human laws does not present any defense in Court. The Latin terms for this concept is Ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of the law does not excuse, or ignorance of the law excuses no one. Another expression nemo censetur ignorare legem means nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law. The expression ignorantia iuris nocet means that not knowing the law is in fact harmful.

But just as we have all broken an earthly law at one time or another, so too we have all broken God’s laws. In fact, the Bible reveals that all of humanity stands accused before God of rebellion against Him and His laws, and that all have been declared guilty by Him. The penalty for transgression of His laws is death.

To know what is right and yet continue to follow the old 1960’s dictum of “if it feels good, go it!” shows we are no longer deceived but simply willful. If we choose to follow the “easier, softer way promised by the elites we have no excuse.

Dante's_Inferno__Treachery

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part Five

For the Framers of the Constitution the science of politics and the practice of politics were all about how to distribute power within the government in order to preserve private property, individual rights, and the rule of law which secured both.

Reposted from February 20, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan- Part five: Push “Beneficial Globalization” as the way toward universal peace. Demonize sovereignty as isolationism. Push artificial constructs such as “climate change”; “debt crisis”; “financial crisis/market meltdown” and “Human rights” vs “property rights”.

One world government refers to the idea of a central government whose authority extends across the entirety of this planet. The idea is generally that the many countries of the world would join together in a federation under one central government with no borders.

The most common proponents of this idea adhere to “progressive internationalism.” Commonly, they believe in a strengthened United Nations evolving into a world government.

They propose that the UN be supplemented with a directly elected parliamentary assembly, to give the UN authority independent of member states. They support international law as paramount over national law, and see it evolving into a single global legal system, with individual citizens having direct access to international courts with the power to overrule national legislation.

Proponents of world government  see world government as the definitive solution to old and new human problems such as war and the development of weapons of mass destruction, global poverty and inequality, and environmental degradation.

It is common in fiction for the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win.

It is how most folks would like to see the world – just and fair. In psychology the tendency to believe this is how the real world actually works is a known cognitive bias called the Just-World Fallacy.

The proponents of  “progressive internationalism”believe that politics is about the government providing services, regulating activity, or redistributing wealth to secure social welfare. The paradigm is power flowing from the government down to the governed.

The United States, however, as outlined by the authors of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were concerned about how best to secure the rights of the people, and how to make sure that governments and people did not endanger those rights.

For the Framers of the Constitution the science of politics and the practice of politics were all about how to distribute power within the government in order to preserve private property, individual rights, and the rule of law which secured both.

The globalists insist that all nations should unite and thereby be governed by “Man’s better angels“, (directed by the elite globalists, of course).

In The Federalist No. 51, arguably the most important one of all, James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of “checks and balances between the different departments” of the government and, as a result, constrain the government’s oppression of the public. Madison penned the following paragraph, which comes close to being a short course in political science:

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.

The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place.

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

To surrender our sovereign freedoms enjoyed under the Constitution for the promised utopian ideal of a beneficial global state is to willingly relinquish the republic our Founding Fathers and so many of our forebears fought, bled and died for… for what? a THE STATE: a monopoly operating ultimately by threat or actual use of violence, making rules for and extracting tribute from the residents of the territory it controls.

“long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT,”
― Thomas Paine, Common Sense

picture a boot

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Things are seldom as they seem

“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
-George Orwell

Repost from September 20, 2017

Just a little something to go with your morning cornflakes:

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.
We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
George Orwell – “1984”

Where communication depends on accurate reportage, we are woefully slipshod in our use of language. In an online forum… in general everyday life, no biggie.

In a SHTF EOTWAWKI situation, on the other hand, it could mean the difference between living or dying, (although the word “lightning” and “lightning bug” have the same root, not many of us, given the choice would opt to be hit by lightning over being hit by a lightning bug).

This blog is not meant to lecture anyone but to, as gently as this grumpy old man can be gentle, suggest a self-assessment of the way we use language, (which is, at best, an inexact method of communication). It is my intention to communicate as accurately as possible and cut through the fog of falsity with which we find ourselves surrounded.

“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
-George Orwell

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part 4

All while the media continues the fairy tale that we much surrender our liberties for security.

One of the architects of our republic, Benjamin Franklin is known for, among other things, the following quote; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Reposted from February 19, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan – Part Four: Bring National Security to the forefront of public consciousness.

On September 11, 2001 America was fundamentally changed with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Our way of life, our fundamental relationship with our government and, in many ways, our way of looking at the freedoms and liberties we took for granted fell like the facades of the Twin Towers.

We were angry and confused and frightened. Many of our fellow citizens demanded that the government “DO SOMETHING”… and, most unfortunately, it did. FEMA morphed from a civilian defense agency to the “Reich-like” stepchild called the Department of Homeland Security. The politicians on both sides of the aisle, realizing they couldn’t look smart so they should at least look busy followed the old Groucho Marx quote that said:“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Their misdiagnosis gave birth to the oxymoronic “Patriot Act” and somewhat later to the “FISA court”.

USA PATRIOT Act is the bill they passed allegedly strengthened civil liberties. In reality, it fails to make any meaningful improvements to the provisions that violate citizen’s basic rights.

The PATRIOT Act only benefits Wall Street, the banks, large corporations and the U.S. Government, not mainstream America. The Patriot Act broadly expands law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties and privacy in U.S. history.

The original Patriot Act was passed into law on October 24, 2001 by the Congress of the United States, just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with few Congressman even reading it and virtually no debate. The Act threatens your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and even worse the power to break your door down at your home at any time of the day or night and conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures or, if your lucky and are not home, they can search your home or business in secret without telling you for weeks, months, if ever.

The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual’s web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals “proximate” to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of “any crime of violence.” Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) and all of this and more requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on and monitoring any computer user’s searches, e-mails and in fact record every stroke on any computer.

As we have seen in part due to the release of information provided by the House Committee on Intelligence, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans.

Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was just recently reauthorized,  have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of American.

If this seems as though it should be illegal, guess what? It is!

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: “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.”

Seems pretty clear, But the argument has been repeatedly made that steps, sometimes Draconian steps must be taken to insure the safety of the public.

The Washington Post, (the Old Gray Lady of Watergate fame), puts it this way: it is perfectly fine to “give up liberty” for security: Discomfort with the government’s capacity, technical or legal, to collect and retain massive amounts of personal information is understandable. But the 2008 FISA amendments sought a compromise between two essential goals: preserving American liberty and robustly defending Americans’ lives and property. We favored the law and believe that it should be extended.

That’s ridiculous. Almost no one seems to understand what’s actually in the FISA Amendments Act, in part because there’s a secret interpretation of it that only the government knows.

This means that many, many people, including those in Congress, are clearly misrepresenting what’s in the law. The fact that the NSA refuses to say how often it has used this secret interpretation to spy on Americans should be a pretty big warning sign — especially as politicians who are either clueless or ignorant claim that it can’t be used to spy on Americans.

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata), was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

Today, with the “Patriot Act” and the “FISA courts” it seems as though the system has been turned on its’ head to protect the socially and politically prominent people while oppressing Jane and Joe Sixpack.

All while the media continues the fairy tale that we much surrender our liberties for security.

One of the architects of our republic, Benjamin Franklin is known for, among other things, the following quote; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Many would look to the government to shepherd us to safety while law enforcement, acting like the sheepdogs protect us from the wolves. We would do well to remember that the sheepdog works for the shepherd, not the sheep and the shepherd is only keeping the sheep until they can either be sheared or slaughtered.

sheep to the slaughter

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part 3

Most important, the Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship stripped as a punishment for a crime. As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. Dulles: “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Repost from February 16, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Plan – Part 3: Expand the voter base and agenda support by granting voting rights to prison inmates, illegal aliens and select US Territories like Puerto Rico. Shape the narrative as a civil rights issue. Label those who protest as RACIST or ISOLATIONIST or INTOLERANT. Paint those who do not fall in line with the “new” agenda as “Rednecks” or “Nazis” or “Reactionaries”, or “Segregationists”.

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 60 in 2013, making California the 10th state to allow driver licenses for people in the country illegally. The STATED goal was to increase public safety and reduce penalties for undocumented immigrants who drive. As of late 2017 the State of California has issued over 900,000 such licenses to illegals.

In 2015, Brown signed the New Motor Voter law. By April, it will automatically register DMV customers to vote when they renew or obtain a driver’s license or fill out change of address forms, unless the customer opts-out.

Jessica Gonzalez, spokeswoman with the California DMV, said; “…we have programming measures in place to prevent that from occurring.” State officials said safeguards are already in place to prevent state DMV workers from typing in any voter information for AB 60 license holders. The state allows unauthorized immigrants to obtain a driver’s license, but supposedly excludes that group from the automatic voter registration.

The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by noncitizens could influence the outcome of an election. Our voter registration system is susceptible to abuse by noncitizens.

In addition, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means noncitizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.

On April 22, 2016 Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued a sweeping executive order that changed the lives of 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, instantly restoring their right to vote. This order leaves only Kentucky, Florida and Iowa with blanket lifetime disenfranchisement policies for ex-felons.

In recent years, the Supreme Court and Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom under a 2000 federal law. Prisoners also retain some First Amendment free speech rights to hold and express political opinions. Most important, the Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship stripped as a punishment for a crime. As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. Dulles: “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Following that chain of logic to it’s conclusion, if “CITIZENSHIP” is not a right that expires on misbehavior, (commission of a crime), then logically there is an argument that “Non-Citizenship” should not be a bar to voting.

Looking at the way things seem to be progressing, it looks as though this part of the plan is well underway.

An old, (C) 1620 British March pretty well sums up  this situation:

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis’d, new fashions are devis’d.
–The World Turned Upside-down

World turned upside down

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part 2

Reposted from February 15, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

Part Two: Consolidate all media assets behind core concepts stressing a new internationalism.

Like all “watchdogs”, the media are expected to bark, but when its many voices is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about the validity of its’ barking arises.

Originally, the Internet was the champion of free thinkers, embraced as a liberating force from corporate owned media. But over a short time online news sites joined radio, television, newspapers and magazines as properties of the small handful of media conglomerates.

In raw numbers, 80 percent of the top 20 online news sites are owned by the 100 largest media companies. Time Warner owns two of the most visited sites: CNN.com and AOL News, while Gannett, which is the twelfth largest media company, owns USAToday.com along with many local online newspapers.

Fake news was not a term many people used two ago, but it is now it is seen as one of the greatest threats to truthful information. Governments and powerful individual elites have used information/propaganda as a weapon for millennia, to boost their support and quash dissidence.

Misinformation, spin, lies and deceit have of course been around forever. But what has been uncovered was a unique marriage between social media algorithms, advertising systems, political operatives prepared to make stuff up to cripple their opponents and freelancers looking to earn some  easy, if nefarious cash.

It’s not only the under-educated and gullible that are victims of the targeted media propaganda. Highly-educated people are often duped by lies as well – and can often be more stubborn when presented with information that challenges their views. This is exactly what the purveyors of societal control are counting on.

“Google, Facebook and other media platforms have said that they are going to be hiring a lot of people to review content and enforce their terms of service and keep fake and illegal stuff off their platforms. Sounds good… until you ask the question who will review the reviewers?

Ill-informed legislators will overreach and do more harm that the problem they are trying to fix, with legislation. The “Ministry of Information” does have a certain ring to it.

Propaganda can have the full weight and power of the state behind it. But more commonly, it’s a public relations challenge rearing its ugly head during a political campaign, a corporate battle or even by a non-profit is trying to manipulate an issue.

It’s hard to fight fire with fire, especially when you can’t use the same evil manipulations and lies that the other side is employing. You might feel like David in a fight against Goliath because propaganda is a tool of those in the power elite both in and out of government.

The best tactic is to establish your own channels of communication, especially since the other side dominates or controls the mainstream media.

Social media, blogs, and e-mail can let you communicate directly to the people, and that’s vital in a fight against propaganda. Flood the Internet at every opportunity. Get your own message out there. You’ll get people talking if you can accomplish this in a witty or clever way that they’ll remember. And as anyone involved in marketing knows, word of mouth is good.

The Founding Fathers ultimately prevailed through pamphleteers like Thomas Paine and others who got the truth out.

“The TRUTH is rarely pure and seldom simple”

–Oscar Wilde

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(2018) Uriel Press

Shun The frumious Bandersnatch!

The control freaks in the US government have been trying for years to pass a National ID card law and it has been successfully resisted every time. This time, however, it appears that the Republicans—who used to be vocally opposed to such measures—are now fully onboard likely because of the bill’s anti-immigration language.

Bandersnatch

There has been much talk over the last several years of RFID chips becoming more mainstream in our society. However, many Americans have expressed concern over such a device and its intrusive qualities, but that has not stopped the government from pushing forward with their goals to chip Americans. Many religious people in the country have pushed back against such a device stating that these dangerous chips could be the “mark of the beast” that’s prophetically discussed in the last book of the Bible, and it appears that day has come.

Earlier this month, Rep. Bob Goodlatte [R-VA-6] introduced H.R.4760 – Securing America’s Future Act of 2018, a sweeping bill that entails everything from Education and the Workforce to Homeland Security to the military. Also, tucked away in this 400-page behemoth of a bill are the details of a new biometric National ID card that could soon be required for everyone.

Not surprisingly, there is almost no media coverage on this legislation.
H.R. 4760 establishes a mandatory National Identification system that requires all Americans to carry a government-approved ID containing “biometric features.” Without this card, according to the legislation, you will not be able to work in this country.

The legislation was drafted under the auspices of providing a legislative solution for the current beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

However, as Ron Paul points out, “this bill would give DACA recipients a 3-year renewable legal status while forcing a biometric National ID card on virtually everyone else.”

“That’s right — the statists want to control you,” said Paul.

Naturally, this bill is wholeheartedly supported by the anti-immigration sect and has gained 70 co-sponsors already in only a few days. As with most police state-promoting legislation, fear of illegal immigration is being pushed to garner such support. However, as Ron Paul points out, the bill won’t just target illegals—it targets everyone—and it will use your most private information to track you.
“Under the statists’ National ID scheme, you’d be forced to carry around your National ID card, tied to this massive database, chockfull of biometric identifiers like fingerprints and retina scans,” Paul noted. “Without this ID, you won’t be able to legally hold a job — or likely even open a bank account or even board a plane!”
Paul said there is a very good chance this bill will become law as the support for it seems overwhelming. He laid out three key factors that are detrimental to the freedom of all Americans.

1. Allow federal bureaucrats to include biometric identification information on the card, potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, or scans of veins on the back of hands, which could easily be used as a tracking device;

2. Be required for all U.S. workers, regardless of place of birth, making it illegal for anyone to hold a job in the United States who doesn’t obtain an ID card;

3. Require all employers to purchase an “ID scanner” to verify the ID cards with the federal government. Every time any citizen applies for a job, the government would know — and you can bet its only a matter of time until “ID scans” will be required to make even routine purchases, as well.

The control freaks in the US government have been trying for years to pass a National ID card law and it has been successfully resisted every time. This time, however, it appears that the Republicans—who used to be vocally opposed to such measures—are now fully onboard likely because of the bill’s anti-immigration language. As Paul points out:

For years now, statists in BOTH parties have been fighting to RAM their radical National ID-database scheme into law.
In fact, this scheme was a key portion of the infamous failed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bills BOTH parties tried to ram through during the Obama administration.

Now, using the momentum behind Trump’s tough talk on immigration and border security, I’m afraid the statists believe the best way to finally enact their National ID scheme is by promoting their bill on Capitol Hill as a “DACA fix” while they sell it to the GOP base as a border “security” measure.
Of course, that’s nothing more than a buzzword meant to trick Americans from all over the country into thinking that Congress is going to seal our southern border.
But in reality, it means something far different.

The “security” members of BOTH parties in the U.S. House want doesn’t target any U.S. border. Instead, it’s meant to create an all-out police state within them.
The truth is, this is exactly the type of battle that often decides whether a country remains free or continues sliding toward tyranny.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance.

“And no one could buy or sell anything without that mark, which was either the name of the beast or the number representing his name.” -Revelation 13:17

US RFID Card

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

The Agenda-Part 1

So looser morals, tolerance of slackers, and weaker judgment became central to the progressive’s lesson plan. In 1899, moral relativism and “diversity” debuted in American education and, as you are most surely aware, continues to clone itself in our educational system to this very day.

Repost from February 14, 2018

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

Point #1 Education: Deemphasize the individual. Through repetition from the earliest opportunity reinforce the “concepts of; “dependence on the State”; “The Collective Good” and “Social Justice”

Vladimir Lenin said; “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

In “Mein Kampf” Adolph Hitler wrote; “whoever has the youth has the future”.

Since history, (at least accurate history), is seldom, if ever taught in today’s hallowed halls of education, most will not know the genesis of why Johnny can’t read, accurately make change for a dollar or control his emotional outbursts without being stuffed with psychotropic pharmaceuticals.

In 1899, Vermonter John Dewey unveiled his vision for remaking American education — a vision swallowed whole by “progressive” educators.

Dewey envisioned a society that assures “the full growth of all [of its] individuals,” a society in which “individualism and socialism” become one.”

The notion that society must guarantee everyone’s welfare would be pursued by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, George W. Bush, and Obama. But the fact that a collective can never be an individual eludes hopelessly theoretical progressives.

Dewey told parents that only a “radical change in education” could fix their children’s immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience. The likelihood that children just like 1899’s troublemakers caused trouble in every generation throughout Homo sapiens’ existence escaped Dewey. More amazingly, to address immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience, Dewey prescribed not structure, but squishy weirdness: “We must recognize our compensations — the increase in toleration, in breadth of social judgments, the larger acquaintance with human nature, the sharpened alertness in reading signs of character and interpreting social situations, greater accuracy of adaptation to differing personalities, contact with greater commercial activities.”

So looser morals, tolerance of slackers, and weaker judgment became central to the progressive’s lesson plan. In 1899, moral relativism and “diversity” debuted in American education and, as you are most surely aware, continues to clone itself in our educational system to this very day.

Recommended reading for the kids today includes Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and leftist Rinku Sen’s Stir It Up. Brainwash a child in militant anti-Americanism, and he or she will not have the capacity for critical thinking.

The sheep will follow the shepherd… all the way to the slaughterhouse floor.

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press

Wars and rumors of… police actions

What politicians apparently are concerned about is giving the president a blank check for war and spineless submission to the special interest lobbies. And, or course, more spending.

US declares WW II

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:
“[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

Here we seem to have just one more instance of clear language of the constitution being noteworthy in the absence of practice. In truth, the congress has yielded this constitutional power to an imperial executive.

The congress issued a declaration of war on Japan on December 8, 1941. But since then, Congress has rarely used its constitutional power to formally issue a war declaration.
Congress approved a resolution declaring war with Japan on that fateful day, as the Senate unanimously voted for the resolution, 82-0. The House passed the resolution by a 388 to 1 vote, with Jeannette Rankin, a pacifist, opposing the move.

“Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States,” the resolution read.

Since then, the United States has only issued five other war declarations: against Germany and Italy (on December 11, 1941) and against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (on June 4, 1942).

And in total, war declarations were declared by Congress in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.

The United States military involvement in Korea came as part of a United Nations effort, while the escalation of the Vietnam War followed a joint resolution passed by Congress as requested by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

Since Vietnam, United States military actions have taken place as part of United Nations’ actions, in the context of joint congressional resolutions, or within the confines of the War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Act) that was passed in 1973, over the objections (and veto) of President Richard Nixon.

For example, when President Obama approved the use of military force in Libya in 2011, it was the 132nd time that a President acted under the conditions of the War Powers Resolution since 1973.

The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”— in other words, al Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

On Oct. 11, 2002, Congress passed a second AUMF giving the president authority to “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Currently, however, the U.S. has military personnel deployed and equipped for combat in at least 19 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Cuba, and Kosovo.

In October, three U.S. soldiers were killed in an apparent ambush in Niger. And the U.S. military has recently stepped up operations in both Yemen and Somalia.

PLAW-107publ40

On April 20, 2018 Sen. Rand Paul sent a letter to his colleagues entitled : The New AUMF Codifies ‘Forever War’

April 18, 2018

Dear Colleague:
For some time now, Congress has abdicated its authority to declare war. The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the President says so.
So, Congress’s new solution is not to reassert Congressional prerogative but to codify the status quo.

It is clear upon reading that the Kaine/Corker AUMF gives nearly unlimited power to this or any President to be at war anywhere, anytime and against anyone, with minimal justification and no prior specific authority.

This is not an AUMF, it is a complete rewriting of power of the executive and constitutional separation of powers.

The new Kaine/Corker AUMF declares war on:
1. The Taliban
2. Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula
3. ISIS anywhere
4. Al-Shabaab in Somalia and elsewhere
5. Al-Qaeda in Syria
6. Al-Nusra in Syria
7. The Haqqani Network in Pakistan and Afghanistan
8. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Niger, Mali, Algeria, Libya, and Nigeria
9. AND ASSOCIATED FORCES (as defined by the President) throughout the globe.
Previous AUMF have never codified associated forces. The Kaine/Corker AUMF not only codifies associated forces, but by conservative estimates declares war on over 20 nations with forces “associated” with either Al-Qaeda or ISIS.

Should Congress declare war or not declare war? Absolutely. Should we be having this debate? Absolutely.

It is indisputably clear that the authority exercised under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 (P.L. 107-40) has become too broad and requires updating, but this Kaine/Corker AUMF is simply not the answer. Simply put, the Kaine/Corker AUMF provides an even more expansive war-making authority to the Executive Branch than the status quo.

The founders recognized that the Executive Branch is most prone to war, thus they placed the power to declare war with the legislature “with studied care.” Yet the Kaine/Corker AUMF would completely abdicate Congress’ power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution.

To be clear, handing war-making power to the Executive Branch is not an exercise of Congress’ power, it is the abandonment of that power.

Arguably, the Kaine/Corker AUMF delegates the Constitutionally explicit power of war declaration to the Executive branch and is therefore unconstitutional.

Expansion of authority as it pertains to groups:
The Kaine/Corker AUMF grants new, unchecked powers to the President in determining what groups qualify for the use of force. This includes the language in Section 3 and Section 5 expanding authority to “associated forces,” which would be the first time that this ambiguous phrase has been codified into law under an AUMF.

Expansion of authority as it pertains to States:
Perhaps more troubling is the level of authority granted to the Executive as it applies to authorizing military action against other nations. The Kaine/Corker AUMF conveys authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Libya, though the bill’s passive inclusion of these countries as outside the definition of a “new foreign country” leaves room for more mission creep in each country. While the 2001 AUMF grants authority to fight those behind the 9/11 attacks wherever they may be, and the 2002 AUMF grants authorization against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Congress should debate military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the remaining four countries on an individual basis.

Limitless potential for war by the Executive:
If the Kaine/Corker AUMF is passed, then Congress will have chosen to make itself irrelevant. This legislation grants the executive the power to use military force against any group or country it chooses, so long as they report it to Congress within 48 hours.
While this shares similarities with the War Powers Resolution, use of force in that instance is constrained by a national emergency, or Congressional authorization. This broad bill would allow the Executive unlimited latitude in determining war and leave Congress debating such an action after forces have been committed into action.

Importantly, even if Congress were to pass a Joint Resolution to reverse an expansion of war-making authority by the President, the President could then veto that resolution. All war making power will henceforth emanate from the President and require no affirmative action of Congress.

It also goes without saying that once our forces are committed it is exceedingly difficult to remove them. This is why the Constitution is clear that authorization for such action comes from Congress before any war begins. Under the Kaine/Corker AUMF, though, congressional oversight is limited to a reactive posture, as the President is allowed to declare any additional groups “associated,” meaning military force would then be authorized, so long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours of doing so. Congress would then have to remove said group via joint resolution.

No sunset provision and quadrennial review:
Instead of a sunset provision which would allow war powers to expire without Presidential approval, this Kaine/Corker AUMF can only be nullified with Presidential approval or a veto proof vote.

If this bill becomes law, the authority for the executive branch to make war as it chooses will continue indefinitely, barring a complete repeal at a later date.
The Kaine/Corker AUMF essentially codifies “forever war,” as the Executive Branch would be able to unilaterally attack any nation or group it saw fit. Once again, this is the inverse of how the process is laid out in the Constitution. The only recourse Congress would have in these instances is to pass a joint resolution within the first 60 days of a conflict-a resolution subject to a veto by the President. If not then, Congress would have a chance to review the larger authorities once every four years, at which time the President could also propose revisions to his own AUMF.

In closing, the Kaine/Corker AUMF flips responsibility for declaring war from Congress to the President. Congress is constitutionally responsible for authorizing war and should not be relegated to a review panel that conducts after-the-fact examinations of the wars of the Executive Branch.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator

It also seems unlikely that an official state of war could be declared in the near future, due to the legal differences between a “state of war” and an “authorization to use military force.”

As the Congessional research Svc- AUMF history RL31133 explains, a formal war declaration triggers a large number of domestic statutes, like the ones that took place during World War II.

“A declaration of war automatically brings into effect a number of statutes that confer special powers on the President and the Executive Branch, especially about measures that have domestic effect,” it says.

These include granting the President the direct power take over businesses and transportation systems as part of the war effort; the ability to detain foreign nationals; the power to conduct spying without any warrants domestically; and the power to use natural resources on public lands.

“An authorization for the use of force does not automatically trigger any of these standby statutory authorities. Some of them can come into effect if a state of war in fact comes into being after an authorization for the use of force is enacted; and the great majority of them, including many of the most sweeping ones, can be activated if the President chooses to issue a proclamation of a national emergency,” says the Congressional Research Service.

“But an authorization for the use of force, in itself and in contrast to a declaration of war, does not trigger any of these standby authorities.”

What politicians apparently are concerned about is giving the president a blank check for war and spineless submission to the special interest lobbies. And, or course, more spending.

So, yes, let’s keep spending that $32,000,000 an HOUR for the total cost of our wars since 2011.

That giant sucking sound you hear is America’s great promise going down the drain. The swamp critters we voted in finally managed to “git ‘er dunnnn.”

Git er dunnn

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

(c) 2018 Uriel Press