A Never-ending Trail of Coincidences

From:

American Free Press contributor Victor Thorn, 54, a long-time researcher and critic of Hillary and Bill Clinton, has been found dead. Police reports indicate he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The author of more than 20 books, he was best known for the Clinton trilogy, “three definitive works that delved into the history of the power couple including their sordid scandals, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults of multiple women, and the drug running out of Mena, Arkansas while Clinton was governor of the state.”

AMERICAN FREE PRESS contacted the State College [Pa.] Police Department this morning for any news on the suicide of Victor Thorn, whose birth name was Scott Robert Makufka.
AFP asked the policeman who answered the phone if the department could provide any updates.

“There was something that occurred on Monday morning, but I don’t know if we’ve released any identities or any details about it at this time.”

AFP asked if he knew when the release might happen.

“I don’t. I don’t know what the status of the investigation is. I have not seen the detective that’s in charge of that today yet. They’ll release it as soon as they can. I don’t know what the holdup is or the details are at this point.”
Via AFP

Thorn’s most recent book is “CROWNING CLINTON: Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be in the White House” and is described as a serious prosecution of Hillary Clinton’s criminal activity:

In Crowning Clinton, Thorn provides groundbreaking information that mainstream media sources only caught up with months or even years afterward, if they had the courage to even touch it at all. Including more than 50 one-on-one interviews with experts, this collection taps into some of the nation’s most astute political minds to present a preponderance of evidence as to why Hillary and Bill’s return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would be disastrous for America.
For example, all in one place you’ll find the real truth about the Benghazi scandal; Hillary’s covering up of Bill’s sexual assaults against innocent victims; the email scandal that has rocked her candidacy; her recent shady business dealings and money laundering; and much more.

At a time when this nation’s future hangs on a delicate thread, every argument must be made to prevent Bill and Hillary from inflicting any further damage on the nation. Crowning Clinton arrives at precisely the right time. This new, potent anthology is a must read for those who can’t rely on other venues for their news.
Authors Roger Stone and Robert Morrow of the The Clintons’ War on Women dedicated their book to Victor in 2015.

Let us pray for Victor Thorn’s family during this difficult time. Rest in peace.



Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-prominent-anti-hillary-clinton-researcher-found-dead-54/#ixzz4GVqSziug

What about Reason and Law

The un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon has stated her intent to enact by Executive Order a Ban on some types of firearms, mainly rifles and carbines. The executive action can only be understood as a restriction or infringement of our unalienable right to self defense and defense against deadly force toward others.

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe…or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

~ Sam Adams ~

I see where the Bush administration has initially indicated support for extending the Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer ban on scores of semi-automatic rifles and on magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition that the Clinton Administration imposed on America back in 1994.  I am seriously disappointed in that decision if it holds.

Laws against violent crimes such as murder, robbery or assault are already on the books and do not require a gun to be used in their commission to be considered criminal acts.  The only thing any criminal needs to carry out such deviant behavior is some means of providing a force advantage over the victim and he could use almost anything for that.

A criminal can just as easily kill or rob with a knife, a baseball bat or his bare fists so what difference does it make which gizmo is used to provide that force advantage over the victim—none whatsoever to my way of thinking.  It’s the act itself that makes such behavior a crime, not the tool used.

Laws are needed to deal with harmful deeds inflicted on people by the misfits of society—those whose behavior deviates from the accepted norm and thus becomes injurious to others.  They are needed to deal with the behavior that inflicts such harm —nothing more complicated than that. 

Crime is the result of socially unacceptable behavior and it is the behavior that determines the crime.  The operative word here is behavior not the implement used by some degenerate. A criminal can choke a person to death with his own mother’s apron strings as well as shoot him.  Is the victim any more dead if a gun is used or is the criminal any guiltier?  I think not. 

There are already laws punishing deviant behavior therefore to my way of thinking, laws pertaining specifically to guns are laws focused on objects incapable of behavior.  A mother’s apron strings can be just as deadly as a gun if the one exhibiting such criminal behavior chooses to use them in that way so should we have laws governing apron strings? Gun-centric laws only restrict, limit, prevent—infringe—upon your right to keep and bear 
arms and do nothing to address violent behavior.

Those 20,000 gun specific laws such as limited magazine capacity, rate of fire, barrel length, registration, licensing, waiting periods, and concealed carry without government permission as examples, do nothing but limit your right of access to guns—infringements upon your rights.  Such is not the mark of a free society.  What harm is there in a 15 round magazine or carrying a gun under your coat?  It’s when that gun is used to harm others that the crime is committed and it’s the criminal behavior that is the crime not the gun.  The gun is obviously incapable of behaving in any way whatsoever—but we all know that don’t we? 

Keep in mind the Second Amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  There are no qualifiers to that statement, as “…shall not be infringed except for…” and you fill in the blank with any of those 20,000 gun laws.

If I could ask the founders their opinion on this question, I would ask if felons, the insane or the immature should be denied access to firearms.  Felons have proven to be unfit members of society and by their own choices have surrendered their rights to fully participate in our society. The insane are not responsible members of society for medical reasons.  The immature, let’s say those that do not know the difference between life and death, and that do not know the difference between right and wrong, and have had no firearms training for the sake of argument, are not yet fully responsible because they are still in the formative years of their lives.

So call me whatever you like but the laws against murder, robbery, and assault exist in Common Law and should be seriously enforced with harsh punishment for violating them—the type of weapon used is entirely irrelevant to the behavior involved.  We should address the behavior of the criminal and leave the law abiding among the rest of us alone. Our right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and not a Government granted privileged to be assigned or removed at the whim of anyone. 

Of course, such an approach would allow the general population to be fully armed and capable of resisting an out-of-control government if need be, so maybe that wouldn’t do after all—perhaps that thought just scares the living daylights out of some politicians.  Might that fear then be the genesis of the 20,000?  Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, 

“When citizens fear their government, you have tyranny; when the government fears its citizens, you have freedom.”

The Founder’s intent underlying the Second Amendment is easy to understand. 
It is fair to say the Founders and Framers obvious intent was to ensure that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was never threatened or infringed by any government action.

So what have the courts said over the years about such a “radical concept?”  Many times we’re told by anti-gun elements that the courts have maintained no individual right to keep and bear arms exists and pro-gun advocates are just too stupid to understand the intricacies of constitutional law.

Have the courts universally denounced the individual’s right to keep and bear arms over the past 200 years and are you really too stupid to read and understand what the Constitution plainly says?  To believe any of that anti-gun bilge, you’d have to be terminally stupid.  

Let’s read a few examples of what several courts across the country and across history had to say in the years after the Constitution was adopted.  Please judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions. 

One note before starting:  I suspect the Esteemed Readers will never see any of these quotes or rulings either reported or cited on the evening news but that would be just a guess.


1803:  George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., pg. 300 (App.)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”


1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."


1846: Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251

" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."


1859:  Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."


1871: Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.”

“The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature.”  [ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT)]


1876: The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (92 U.S. 542)

Recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution. The Court stated that the right to arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."


1878: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."


1921: State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."


1922: People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."  


2000: Tuesday, June 13th. Let’s fast-forward to the Clinton years of judicial activism and see how an attempt was made to unscrupulously bastardize this long venerated inalienable right by a dangerously anti-gun, anti-constitution administration in U.S. v. Emerson.

Early accounts from those who attended the week's oral arguments on U.S. v. Emerson (see FAX Alert Vol. 7, No. 23) revealed, with no uncertainty, how the Clinton-Gore Administration truly viewed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The attorney representing the government, William Mateja, said that the Second Amendment offers law-abiding U.S. citizens no protections against the government prohibiting them from owning any firearm. Judge William Garwood, one of three judges on the panel that heard arguments, had the following exchange with Mateja:

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?  You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people?  Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes".

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Fortunately, the court rejected the Clinton-Gore argument—this time.

It’s frightening how tenuous is the jewel of liberty and how easily it can be incrementally eroded if left unguarded by the people and totally entrusted to the Machiavellian machinations of insidious politicians.

James Madison had it pegged, 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

If the un-elected Governor, Kate Brown, of Oregon begins legislating from the Executive Branch of the Oregon State Government, she shall be subverting the intent of the Oregon State Constitution, the Law, and the Legal System she was sworn to uphold. Then again, maybe she does not care about reason, the Law, or the Legal System.

It’s my uncompromising conviction that unless the people jealously guard our jewel at every turn and strongly reject any attempt to incrementally infringe on our freedom, we will eventually and unwittingly lose it—piece by little piece.  Once it is lost however, it might be lost for generations. Generations that won’t even know what they’ve lost.

Sources:

Excerpts from:  What The Courts Said by Colonel Dan

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2015/01/one-more-time-gun-laws.html

Are You An American?

How you identify yourself tells a lot about you. We all like to be a part of a group that stands for something that is important to ourselves, but how many truly stand for what is right?

Are you a Democrat?  Do you believe that government must provide you with basic needs? Do you believe that government must provide for your education, health care, and your personal safety? Do you believe in majority rules? Do you believe the government by legislation must define what a marriage is? Do you believe that government must regulate the food we eat, the air we breathe, the types of arms we may possess, the lands within a State for environmental causes?

Are you a Republican? Do you believe that marijuana must remain prohibited by law? Do you believe a strong military presence around the world is in the interests of national security? Do you support the Patriot Act, NDAA, and feel the NSA spying is a necessary infringement for the sake of national security? Do you believe that immigration can be regulated based on religious beliefs? Do you believe that the federal government and the laws enacted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court are valid? Do you believe that lowering income taxes for the employed and for corporations will stimulate the economy and create jobs? Do you believe that the currency of the United States must be controlled by a central bank?

If you answer yes to any of the questions above, you are NOT an American. You may live in America, but unless you stand for the Sovereignty of the Individual, the State as a free nation, and the federal system of governance as a limited body politic, you are NOT an American.

We are constantly being bombarded with left-right, conservative-liberal, and yes, Democrat-Republican, as our choices. Chosen by whom? I did not choose any of these labels for myself. I chose to make my own decisions, based on my knowledge and understanding of freedom and the limitation of governance prerequisite in a free society.

So often are we compared to the nations in Europe, our clinging to guns, where most 'civil societies' have banned guns. The latest attacks in Paris demonstrate how dangerous it is for the People to be unarmed and defenseless. How can we call ourselves civilized when we have such mass shootings and gun violence in America?

First, the places where there is so much gun violence are places where the public are restricted by force of law from keeping and bearing arms. And second, gun free zones are the sites of the mass shootings, again where the public is defenseless and only the criminals are armed.

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" does not mean a police force nor a military presence. It refers to We the People, you and me, as we are the militia and duty-bound to enforce the laws pursuant to the Constitution of the United States. "... the right of  the People to keep and bear arms shall be infringed." Simply stated, all gun laws infringe on the right of the People, therefore ALL gun laws are unconstitutional.

In the wake of the attack on defenseless individuals by radical Islamic terrorists, the person who has the audacity to call himself President, instead of standing up as an American (some think he is not) he hopes that you will be in such a state of fear that you will clamor and demand stricter gun control. But that is a topic for another day.

Reference Links:

One More Time:  Gun Laws in America

The Second Amendment:  Meaning And Purpose

Is American a Land of Cowards and Slaves?

The Rise of the Citizens Militia: The Defenders of the Republic

Planned Paranoia:  The Fear of Firearms

The Short Road To Chaos And Destruction

The following article was first published by Rumor Mills in March of 2008. It seems relevant to repost it today as we are on the verge of losing our nation to a global cabal. Thanks to Raylean Allan Russbacher!



1992:  GUNTHER RUSSBACHER EXPOSES THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND ITS OWNERS


Posted By: Rayelan [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 20-Mar-2008 22:00:29
Edited by Rayelan Allan Russbacher

Editor's note: Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher is a 29 year veteran of the United States Intelligence Community, (Office of Naval Intelligence, attached to the Central Intelligence Agency). During all of that time he has operated as a deep black covert operative. In 1980 Captain Russbacher flew then vice-presidential candidate George Bush to a secret meeting near Paris in what has become known as "The October Surprise" scandal.
In 1989, Captain Russbacher violated direct orders and married, Rayelan Allan, an investigative researcher who was currently working to expose the October Surprise scandal. Captain Russbacher was arrested two days after their marriage and stayed incarcerated until December of 1993.
It is evident to all who are familiar with the Russbacher case that he was a political prisoner of the Bush administration. The following article was written, in spring of 1992, from his prison cell in the Jefferson City Correctional Center in Missouri.
Captain Russbacher has been called the "Company Banker". Because of this, he had to be knowledgeable about the banking system in the United States. Once he began studying the Federal Reserve, its origins and its global aspirations, he began to understand how three hundred families control the world. This article was written from memory, with a little help from friends at Langley Center.

The One World Monetary Cabal

The story of my investigation into the One-World monetary cabal begins in the elevator at Langley Center, (Headquarters for the Central Intelligence Agency in McLean, Virginia.) I had just finished a field exercise designed to certify me for further operations status. I had narrowly passed.
On the elevator, a friend invited me to join him and three others for dinner. Knowing that my plane wasn't due out until 0800 hours the following morning, I accepted. I needed a shower, so I hurriedly walked to my car and began the drive back to the city. It was a sweltering day in the Capitol. The air appeared to stand still. Mosquitos angrily attacked anything that moved on the hot pavement. Little did I suspect, as I drove back to my hotel, that tonight's dinner was going to be more than just a friendly gathering.
After a shower, shave and fresh clothes, I arrived at the restaurant. I arrived early so I could have a drink and check out the place. I made my way through the restaurant, heading for the bar.
Hopefully no one noticed my surprise when I saw the group who had already gathered. It was a weekend, the place should have been empty. But it was filled with high level government types, most of whom I knew. My friend from work was already in the bar. Judging from the half-filled drink in his hand, he had arrived early with the same intent in mind. The three others he mentioned this afternoon were with him.

After exchanging the usual, banal forms of greetings, we were led into the dining room.

Over hors d'oeuvres I realized that I was in the midst of a serious meeting. The others who were present (with the exception of one man, who was employed by one of the wire services,) were all top echelon government employees. Together we represented the elite of the investigative and intelligence communities. You didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that something more than dinner was going on here. To slam home the point, a guy from State, (the State Department) read us our evening's agenda. We were apprized that dinner would be brief so we should eat fast. A helicopter would pick us up and take us to a SPECIAL MANUFACTURING plant.

Not knowing when we'd eat again, we followed his suggestion and ate quickly, in studied silence. We were soon told that the helicopters were waiting, ready to take us deep into the Maryland countryside. We left the table and boarded, still not knowing where we were going or why.
The flight was thankfully uneventful and the craft softly deposited us on the lawn in front of the corporate offices of a large manufacturing plant. I offered the guess that the firm was considering an expansion or maybe desired a government contract. Possibly they were looking for government assistance to fund their current projects. At that point, all speculations were pure conjecture.
It was plain to all of us that we were on the scene as representatives of our respective bureaus and agencies. The meeting was to be with various high corporate officials, along with members of a U.S. Senator's office and the mayor's office of a large Maryland metropolis.
After receiving an impressive tour of the facility, one of the members of our group asked why the firm was planning such a major expansion. The corporate official in charge of the tour replied,  "We are one of three companies being considered by the United States Treasury Department to build the printing presses that will print the new U.S. currency."
We all looked at each other. The expressions on our faces said it all. "What new U.S currency?" Not a word was spoken. We were as speechless at that moment as we would have been if we had been lobotomized by the painless methods of chemical ingestion. Here we were, all of us high level government officials, learning about the planned new currency without any warning or introduction. It was almost as if the information had been purposely leaked to us through the grapevine... through a private, non governmental source. The corporate official, when probed about the matter, and unorthodox manner of approach, claimed he didn't know much beyond what he had already told us.
When I returned to my office at Langley the following day, I couldn't help but wonder what last night was all about. I entered the entire proceedings into my Weekly Assessment Report, known within our circles as the "WAR" reports. Over the next several weeks I spent a great deal of time investigating the proposed printing of the new currency and the purpose behind it. I discovered soon enough that others were asking questions as well.

(One of those individuals was Congressman Ron Paul of Texas who served on the Congressional committee dealing with the Treasury Department on this particular matter.)
In essence, I had learned that the plans to issue a new currency were international in scope, at least a dozen major countries were planning, or had specific plans, for coming out with new money. They included Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy, Australia, Brazil and several others.
I engaged my network to gather information on these proposed changes. Soon the information began flowing into my terminal. The picture began to clear. Several of the afore named countries had already issued new currencies, in various denominations. Most of these new currencies had two things in common...they had bare spots, about the size of a fifty cent coin, usually on the left-hand side of the bill. Upon closer inspection of these currencies, it was evident that they also contained metallic filament or element strips, enabling special devices to detect the currencies as they passed through airports or across international boundaries.
If the currencies are held over a light, a three-dimensional image (hologram) becomes apparent in the blank spot. The images, barely visible to the naked eye, are seemingly always of prominent world figures, and cannot be reproduced on copiers. The effort to create the "new money" was internationally coordinated.
Rumor had it that these currencies would later receive a common image linking them together in an international monetary system. Several years have passed since I first learned about the proposed new currency. Although it has been printed, and is stored in Treasury vaults, the actual issuance of the currency has, for some unknown reason, been delayed. Based upon my information as a member of the United States Intelligence community, it seems clear that, if we were to enter into a world government in the near future, the first step, from a monetary standpoint would include the establishment of an international currency system.
It must be stated that due to the rapid advances in electronic banking technology and the proven willingness of consumers to quickly adapt to these changes, the chances of by-passing the new currencies and going directly to an electronic (cashless) system are increasing exponentially. If the powers that be perceive the public to be ready and prepared for such a move, I believe they wouldn't hesitate to make this jump all at once, even in spite of the large investment that has already been made in the new currency.
If this were to be the case, the main focus of international finance would, without doubt, shift toward promoting international debit cards, which already are gaining widespread acceptance because of their convenience. Long time antagonists of these cards, such as Austria, Germany and Switzerland, have always believed in a true cash and carry society. They have already, with great regret, lost the battle to the debit card banking schemes.
To make a purchase, the card is passed through a scanning device. After making a positive identification, your bank account or credit account is automatically charged or debited with the amount of the purchase. The willingness of consumers to accept such a single card for worldwide use is already past the test market stage. Even my household has not been spared. We have received the new AT&T card which is being promoted by the intriguing commercial..."One World, One Card." The implications are most clear. Big Brother is at our very door. However, THIS Big Brother, should not be confused with Orwell's; for it is not the Big Brother of our national government, but rather and more ominous...it is BIG BROTHER of world-wide proportions.
Once such debit/credit cards have gained world-wide acceptance, everything would be in place for the next and final step, which would be to force each individual to be tagged with a personal identification code without which he would be unable to buy or sell. The technology for such a worldwide electronic system is already in place, and experiments with such a mark have already been conducted in several countries.
Other developments are underway as well. In the not too distant future, products on our grocery shelves may become labeled with an invisible bar code. The Universal Product Code (UPC), which most of us have complained is an eye sore on product packaging, will no longer be visible. It will still be there, however, only the scanner will be able to read it. Once the transition to an invisible code begins to take place, it will only be a matter of time before humans are tattooed with a similar mark.

Wake up America! The implications to personal freedom are staggering! I emphasize the tattoo in order to bring this discussion down to a personal level. If the globalist cabal has their way, their system will become operational by 1994. To understand how all this fits together, it's important to understand some of the finer points of monetary history.
Recently passed interstate banking laws have made this global centralization possible by allowing strength and swallow mergers. I am saying that many of the smaller banks have been virtually eaten by the big ones...at an alarming rate.

Over a 12 state region stretching from New York to the Carolinas, only three  New York superbanks control over 85% of all banking assets. The same can be said for the First Interstate System, which is now in place from the Pacific West to the middle of the heartland of America. The writing is on the wall, surely it is finally going to be read.
I had ample opportunity to study the American banking system while serving as an operative for the Central Intelligence Agency's Proprietary Operations Division. After all, we had not only served as members of boards of directors, but more so, held outright ownership of a number of Savings and Loan institutions. I was well in the know, but even I was shocked to realize that I had merely scratched the surface on the national and international banking plot.
I discovered that the SAME forces behind the big bank mergers, already controlled the American banking industry, via the Federal Reserve System. This has been the case ever since the Fed's establishment in 1913. Contrary to public belief, the Federal Reserve is NOT a government institution. It is a privately held corporation owned by stockholders. Until a few years ago, however, the names of those who owned the Federal Reserve were one of the best kept secrets of international finance, due to a provision of the Federal Reserve Act which stated that the identities of the Fed's Class A stockholders cannot be revealed.

In our circles it became widely known that the Fed's principle owners, or stockholders, as they prefer to be called, were the ROTHSCHILD banks of London and Berlin; LAZARD BROTHERS Banks of Paris; ISRAEL MOSES SEIF Banks of Italy, WARBURG Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; LEHMAN BROTHERS Bank of New York; and GOLDMAN, Sachs Banks of New York; KUHN, Loeb Bank of New York; CHASE MANHATTAN Bank of New York. These interests own and operate the Federal Reserve System through approximately three hundred stockholders, all of whom are very well known to each other, and frequently are related.

This can be understood better by knowing that a great deal of maneuvering and deception accompanied the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. The original proposal, calling for a central bank operated by insiders and private interests, was presented by Nelson Aldrich,(the maternal grandfather of today's Rockefeller brothers,) and was known as the Aldrich Bill. This bill was narrowly put down, but was soon reintroduced and passed as the Federal Reserve Act, (officially known as the Owens Glass Act.)

Because of the way in which the Federal Reserve System was designed by its founder, whoever controlled the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, essentially controlled the entire system. For all practical purposes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York IS the Federal Reserve. Currently, more than ninety of the 100 largest banks in the United States are located within this district.

Class A stockholders control the entire Federal Reserve System by owning the stock of the largest member banks in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. This controlling interest is held by fewer than a dozen international banking establishments, only four of which are factually based in the United States. The rest of the outlaying interests are European, with the most influential of these being the Rothschild family of London.

Each of the American interests are in some way connected to this family. Included among these are the Rockefellers who are by far the most powerful of the Fed's American stockholders. (The Rockefeller holdings in the Federal Reserve are primarily through Chase Manhattan Bank.)





Through their U.S. and European agents, the Rothschilds would go on to finance the Rockefeller Standard Oil dynasty, the Carnegie Steel empire, as well as the Harriman railroad system. The Rockefeller, who later became intermarried with the Carnegies, would go on to finance many of American's leading capitalists, through Chase Manhattan and Citibank, both of which have long been Rockefeller family banks. Many of these families would also become intermarried with the Rockefeller so that by 1937 one could trace "an almost unbroken line of biological relationships from the Rockefeller through one-half of the wealthiest sixty families in the nation."
Owing much of their wealth to the Rockefeller, these families have become loyal allies of the "family". The Rockefeller, on the other hand, owing their enormous fortune to the Rothschild banking empire, have for the most part remained true and loyal to them and to their European interest. As a direct result of this chain, much of America's corporate wealth is ultimately traceable to the old money of Europe and the ONE-WORLD INTERESTS of its members.

In order to bring the reader up to speed, and make the connection between the new currency, the international debit/credit card, the Federal Reserve System and the New World Order, it is imperative to present a little American History within this report.

In 1911, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Standard Oil had in fact, long been in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. However, the problem goes back all the way to 1890, where Standard Oil of Ohio, owned by John D. Rockefeller was refining more than 90% of all American crude oil and was well on its way to international expansion politics. Although J.D. and his family were the repeated subjects of congressional investigations for anti-trust violations and criminal conspiracy, the investigations had little or no effect on the family's business or progress. They always managed to stay a step ahead of the federal government. The law was not able to thwart such illicit maneuvering. The American peoples' hands were tied.
It is worth noting that the 1911 action did indeed cause the Rockefeller family empire a certain amount of legal difficulties. It brought them into the United States District Courts. A verdict was found in favor of the government. The firm had to be split and many of the peripheral firms sold off. The holding company was dissolved, its shares distributed among thirty three companies in an attempt to break up the monopoly. However, it soon became evident that all of the new companies were owned by the same people (J.D. Rockefeller had 25% of stock in each of the new firms), "and that there wasn't a shred of competition among ANY OF THEM!"
Offshoots of the original Standard Oil Trust included Standard Oil of New Jersey (today EXXON), Standard Oil of New York (today MOBIL), Standard Oil of California (today operates under its name and Chevron), Standard Oil of Indiana (DX-BORON), Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO), Standard Oil Company, Phillips 66, and many lesser known others.
In 1966 (data supplied from my "company", as a result of congressional investigation headed by U.S. Representative Wright Patman of Texas,) it was discovered that four of the world's seven largest oil companies were under the direct ownership and/or control of the Rockefeller family. According to an earlier Operations Reports, the largest of these, Standard Oil of New Jersey (EXXON), alone controlled 321 other major corporations, including Humble Oil and Venezuela's OREOLE Petroleum; themselves among the largest oil corporations in the world.
By 1975, the Rockefeller had gained control of the single largest block of stock in Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) and were believed to be in control of TEXACO as well. (Therefore, it must be assumed that the extremely large suit and judgement against Texaco was merely a put-on for the public, and not a true verdict. Consider the true premise of a parent company bringing suit against it's darling daughter.) It was further noted that the Rockefeller were operating major joint ventures with Royal Dutch Shell, which was already in the hands of European one-world interests. I am specifically referring to the Dutch Royal Family. It was Queen Juliana who was the sole owner of Shell. Upon her daughter's (Beatrice) marriage to Klaus (Germany), she divested herself of the interests in Royal Dutch Shell. Substantial interests were offered and sold through Credit Anstalt Bank Verein, as well as Union Bank of Switzerland.
However, our article deals with global strategists from both sides of the Atlantic. It should have seemed obvious to any American that major problems were to be encountered with the continuation of the Fed System. Ever since the founding of the Federal Reserve, consistent efforts have been made by conservatives of both houses of Congress to have their leaders put a stop to the Fed and to the dark forces behind it. With the passing of each decade, there was at least one valiant attempt to expose the already well known conspiracy.
Congressman Charles Lindbergh, Sr., the father of the famous aviator, was among those who fought the passage of the dark Act and later managed to raise an investigation into the cartel. His life was made extremely difficult as a direct result of crying for such investigation. Lindbergh had openly yelled his warning to Congress and to the American people. It was all to no avail. No one would hear his cry in the wilderness.
It must be noted that Lindbergh's efforts to expose the plot were followed by those of Congressman Louis T. McFadden, who chaired the House Banking and Currency Committee for a ten year period. During his tenure, three attempts were made on his life. First, he was shot in Washington, D.C., then his food was poisoned. The third attempt was unfortunately successful. His mysterious death occurred while on a visit to New York City. The cause of death, as listed on the death certificate, was given as "heart failure", although more than enough evidence pointed to poisoning. It is my proffered opinion that Mr. McFadden was poisoned by members of the cartel. Without proper court orders demanding the exhumation and forensic pathology tests, we shall never know the true story.

During the 1950's, Congressman Carroll Reese of Tennessee headed what became known as the Reese Committee. The Committee was charged with conducting a thorough investigation of the (then) major tax-exempt foundations linked to the international money cartel. The investigation centered on those foundations and trusts actually owned and controlled by the Rockefeller, Fords and Carnegies, and well as the Guggenheim foundations. The findings regarding the wealth and absolute power of these foundations were so traumatically overwhelming that many in Congress found the information difficult to believe. That disbelief, was the door opener for the continuation of the Machiavellian machinations within the money industry.
The disbelief and resultant inaction was also indirectly responsible, for allowing Agency personnel to defrock the already threatened Banking and Savings industry. The implementation of this defrocking, thanks to Congressional Oversight Committees, was easily attained. Please bear in mind, though, that the raping of the American financial institutions began long before the Agency entered the picture.
During the 1960's and 1970's, Congressman Wright Patman of Texas also investigated manipulations by these foundations, trusts and the Federal Reserve. Using his influence as Chairman of the House Banking Committee and later as the Chairman of other important committees, he repeatedly tried to expose the so called "One World Plot" by calling for audits of the Federal Reserve, and even trying to have the Act repealed. However, the findings of each of his committees, for some strange reason, were unable to attract any attention from the media. Patman, and others who have gone after and before him, frequently stated and vented his frustration over this lack of press and media coverage. On one occasion he stated, "our exposes of the Federal Reserve Board are shocking and scandalous, but they are only printed in the daily Congressional Record, which is read by very few people."
In the 1970's and the 1980's, Congressman Larry McDonald was the one who spearheaded the efforts against the Bush version of the New World Order. In 1976 he wrote the introduction to the "Rockefeller File", a book exposing the Rockefeller' financial holdings and secret intentions. The book supposedly revealed that the Rockefeller had as many as two hundred trusts and foundation type organizations, and that the actual number of such foundations controlled by the family might well number into the thousands. Such control IS possible because Rockefeller banks, such as Chase Manhattan, have become the trustees for many other U.S. foundations as well; possessing the right to invest and to vote the capital and common stock of these institutions--through the trust department of the bank.
McDonald did everything in his power to warn the American public. However, as usual, the attempt was to no avail. He stated unequivocally, that the Rockefeller intended to control "--first our own country, and then the world!" He went on to state. "Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, yes I do. I am convinced there is a plot, national and international."
McDonald's warning was written on legal congressional letterhead and was dated November, 1975. During the ensuing years, frustrated by the media's refusal to report his findings, he began, like others and myself, to take his message to the streets by speaking out against these forces publicly to anyone who would listen to him. McDonald's courageous efforts came to an abrupt end on August 31, 1983 when he was killed aboard the Korean Airliner 007 flight, which "accidentally" strayed over Soviet airspace and was "accidentally" shot down.
Today, as with many other true patriots, very little remains of his fight for freedom. Critical information does kill the holder.
The chance of a U.S. Congressman being aboard a commercial airliner shot down by the Soviet military, is less than one in a billion. Depending on the variables entered into the equation, the numbers may very well be higher and greater still. You, the public, are expected to believe that it was pure coincidence, just as we are supposed to believe that the recent (1991) deaths of Senator John Heinz and former Senator John Tower, in two separate crashes were "pure" coincidence as well.
Tower had been an outspoken critic of the "Eastern Establishment" (a euphemism for ONE WORLD ORDER), even though he had himself been associated with such organizations. He had a very strong sense of right and wrong, particularly on matters concerning national security. He was well known for "bucking" the tide. This backfired on him with deadly results when certain members of Congress, loyal to the Regan (Reagan) and Bush faction of the Intelligence Community (Faction #1), banded together against him in a smear campaign which resulted in the denial of Tower's confirmation as U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Outraged over the undocumented allegation made to slander his name, Tower began the book writing process so feared in Washington circles. His controversial book heavily criticizes his old crony pals in Congress. His death in a plane crash on April 5, 1991 came very shortly after the book was released.
One day earlier (April 4, 1991), Senator John Heinz died in a blazing plane crash near Philadelphia. The official reports state that the plane's landing gear had suddenly malfunctioned. A helicopter was sent up to check out the gear, only to end up (allegedly) crashing into the plane itself. We are really stretching the "coincidence theory" when we state that two freak accidents occurred in One! First, the landing gear fails, and then the rescue aircraft slams into the plane. No one should make book as to the veracity of such obviously slanted and untrue reports.
Heinz and Tower had both been members of a prominent One-World society known as the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR. Both had served on powerful Senate banking and finance committees, and had known a great deal about the matters discussed in this article. I suppose the obvious question must read..."could they have known too much?" I submit that they in fact...knew too much! Both were very astute when it came to matters of monetary policy and the implementation of foreign policy. Yes, without doubt, they knew too much. Although accidents do happen, how much longer are we supposed to believe that all of these "so called" accidents are mere coincidence?
Since the earlier death of Congressman Larry McDonald, Senator Jesse Helms has led many efforts to expose the plot. Although Mr. Helms has recently been required to undergo extensive cardiovascular surgery, nothing appears to have happened to him, YET! I am quite certain that Mr. Helms would appreciate the combined prayer of Americans who are concerned for the truth as well as his safety.
The vivid remarks and statements of Senator Helms, like those of his predecessors, have been entered into the Congressional Record, without receiving any network coverage. Regretfully, the only attention Mr. Helms manages to garner in the press is in the form of public ridicule over his conservative voting record. It must be noted here, that the major threat to the American way of life transcends labels like Conservative and Liberal. Those who valiantly try to protect the way of life that Americans love and cherish are the new American patriots. They come from all backgrounds, Republican, Democrat, Liberal and Conservative.
The American people must wake up immediately and realize that the "Labels" applied to them are merely a way of dividing and conquering. One has only to remember the 1992 republican convention and its blatant attempt to divide and conquer the American people with obvious divisive and untrue statements. Wake up America and understand why the "One World Elite" needs to label groups. As an example, when the women's movement began to gain momentum and presented problems to the entrenched elite, a way had to be found to neutralize the power of the women's movement. Women who join together and fight for common causes such as child care, health care and education are a formidable force. To keep such a powerful force from taking over government, the "think tanks" created the solution...divide and conquer. Turn women against each other and they will never be able to become a powerful political force. The method they chose to divide and conquer the growing women's movement was abortion. Other methods are employed in other areas...first label, then divide, then conquer. My lengthy digression can be summed up in one sentence: Forget all the old labels, become American patriots...it's the only way to save America.
* * * * *
During the 1960's and 1970's, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Wright Patman, Larry McDonald, and others, the message of a "One World Conspiracy" had begun to reach the "reading" American people. The usual action groups were formed by various citizens in an urgent attempt to get this information into the hands of the public, However, as usual, without coverage from the major media, their efforts have had only limited results. These groups have had to rely on self-published newsletters and books. Numerous radio appearances also were used to spread the word. The task of educating the American public is not a simple one, but rather and more so, based and predicated upon numerous unpublicized speaking engagements in order to get the word out. Such is the stress associated with an active grassroots campaign.

Lt. Col. Archibald Roberts is one of the individuals who has made significant impact. As Director of the Committee to Restore the Constitution, he began testifying before state legislatures, informing our elected officials, at the state level, about the deception surrounding the Federal Reserve Act. His campaign, urging state legislatures to repeal the Federal Reserve Act was, according to Agency records, launched on March 30, 1971, when he testified before the Wisconsin House of Representatives. The text of Roberts' address was subsequently entered in the Congressional Record on April 19, 1991 by Louisiana Congressman John Rarick.
As a result of Roberts' work, by the mid 1980's, approximately twenty states had taken some form of action to pass legislation, calling either for an audit of the Fed, or for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. However, there has been virtually no media coverage, and the American public is still largely unaware of the intense battle going on behind the scenes of the Washington Establishment.
During June, 1989, the battle waged at the state level had once again reached Congress.

Representative Henry Gonzalez, of Texas, introduced House Resolution 1469, calling for the abolition of the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System. He also introduced House Resolution 1470, calling for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. During the same session, Representative Phil Crane of Illinois, introduced H.R. 70, calling for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve. However, all of these efforts, like those of others before them, failed.
We have personally come to know that it is far more than merely difficult to get the public behind a legitimate cause or issue, if the media refuses to cover it. Obviously such coverage is necessary in order to get the public to put the kind of pressure on Congress that will lead to action. This is particularly true of a Congress in which One-World interests now hold the upper hand, and own the media.
When I was asked to write this article, I made my way back into the dark corridors and lessor known places inside Agency Headquarters. Some of my old friends and associates were still willing to hear from me, even though several years had passed. They not only talked with me, but were gracious enough to accept my collect calls from prison. We pulled files, read numerous articles, and reviewed stymied legislation. The information you have been made privy to is a result of cooperation with the "so called" unspeakable, and unclean element from the CIA Center. We have come a long way in tracking the specifics of this money trail and how One World money is being used to influence our society. Our distaste must seem obvious to the reader. These one-worlders have invaded every aspect of American life and not only threaten the well being of the nation, but have virtually managed to secure a strangle hold upon the physical bodies of each and every one of us.
It must be stated, for the record, that each year billions of dollars are EARNED by class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve. These profits come at the expense of the U.S. Government and American citizens, who pay interest on bank loans, a portion of which ends up going to the Federal Reserve. Much of this money, along with the annual profits stemming from hundreds of corporations and banks owned and operated by these same interests, is then funneled into tax-exempt foundations--where it is then reinvested into American and foreign corporations, and used to influence our thoughts and our economy. In this fashion, a small group of people, dedicated to the establishment of a strong type of world government, has gained considerable influence over global activity and therefore your life.

It is NO coincidence that the forces responsible for the founding of the Federal Reserve were also responsible for the passage of laws permitting the creation of tax-exempt foundations. Such private foundations were specifically intended to serve as tax shelters to stow and hide the enormous wealth generated by the international banking cartel. It might be significant to note that they have also been most cherished for the purpose of funding major think-tanks, which influence virtually every aspect of American life.
AUTHOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS: REPORT FORMAT

(Personal opinion included)
At the close of research and investigation for this article, the writer must conclude that the influence of one-world foundations in the areas of social science, education and foreign policy has only accelerated; thereby accomplishing great strides due to minimal opposition from opposing foundations.
It must be remembered that it was the One-World cabal, (Rockefeller, Rothschild etc.), who pushed for the legalization of tax-exempt foundations, and were therefore the first to establish them. They were able to successfully get off to a head start. Even if a sizable foundation-sponsored opposition were to develop, it would be on a small scale and of rather insignificant result, compared to the massive efforts exerted by the One-World Cabal's mega-foundations.
The One World Cabal will always have more power in the world because of the devious strategies it is willing to employ in order to accumulate money and manipulate the rest of us with it. Clear cut, and decisive action is required immediately. Otherwise, it is this writer's opinion that we will very quickly lose the freedoms our Constitution guarantees for us. In short, our Constitution will be superceded by a One-World document, in fact it already has.
It is important for the reader to begin to think about what the world will be like if the One-Worlders succeed. Because this is a short article, all the possible ramifications and changes to your lifestyle cannot be covered. But one possible negative outcome could be a return to a feudal system with 98% of the people shackled to some major corporation in the same way that serfs lived by the whim of their overlord. This is just one of many possible scenarios, all equally black.
That being said, the ball is squarely in your court. You are part of a select few who have the education, intelligence and desire to even care about such things. In other words, it is up to you.

You are part of the last classically educated free-thinking generation in this nation. If you wish to preserve your country for your grandchildren, then get busy. Write letters, form groups which will inform your family and friends. Buy shortwave radios, and create radio networks which will get together and decide how to create an informed voting block that will take back your country.

Planned Paranoia: The Fear of Firearms

Laws that prohibit firearms do nothing to prevent nor deter crime. The facts speak for themselves, regardless of what the fear mongers preach. Disarming the People is necessary for complete control. Every tyranny passed ever more restrictive laws until outright confiscation was implemented.

With the passage of unconstitutional laws in the Constitution State, Connecticut has proven my point:  confiscation is eminent and unless We the People rise up, all of our freedoms are lost.

The Esteemed Readers of Fix America are well aware of how we reached this point in America's demise. Starting with Lincoln's martial law which has never really been dismissed, and moving through to the NDRP and executive orders that can only be followed by usurpers of the Constitution, we are at that fork in the road and must choose the path we will follow.

It is always easier to say, 'Que sera, sera!' And just go along. That is what the good people of Germany did as National Socialism festered in their nation. History demonstrates the results in these so-called 'revolutions' against well established governments. Our own founders described this concern in the Declaration of Independence, as they further listed the oppression and usurpation of Common Law and the restrictions placed on natural rights.

The right to keep and bear arms was assumed to be part of the natural rights, those being life, liberty and property.  The fear that a government would at some point attempt to disarm the People, prior to oppressing them, it was insisted to be placed as an enumerated right which governments were forbidden to legislate against.

By highlighting certain crimes in the media, the policy pushers of big and powerful government control instill fear in the public, and use that fear to press for regulations that will prohibit certain types of 'criminals' from having all of their rights. Such is the federal law that prohibits a person charged and convicted of a felony crime from ever owning a firearm. That is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Gun control advocates will ask, "Do you want ex-cons having guns?" to which I say, "Those who want them will get them, regardless of the law." Breaking the law is why they were convicted in the first place! "But when they get caught with a gun, they get stiffer sentences." To which I say, "If the crime they committed was such that the sentence paid restitution to the victim, instead of allowing the convict to live on taxpayer resources, maybe they would not be repeat offenders!"

Law needs to provide justice. Laws that create criminals from law-abiding people are not just laws. They are created by planning and planting fear in the reporting of crimes, school shootings, mall shootings, now military base shootings. If more people carried weapons there would be less of this, not more.

For many years, I never carried so much as a pocket knife and now I carry a weapon always.  I respect a business's wishes when posted 'No firearms', and I find another place to spend my money and time when I do. I imagine that most of the loudest advocates for gun laws are the ones who need not have a weapon. Their display of fear and paranoia is good reason not to own or bear firearms. 

For the rest of us We the People will decide NOT the government!

Reference Link:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/