Good news out of Washington, everyone. The military is coming home from all 130 occupied countries you ask? No, not that. Is the Federal Reserve System being abolished and Ben Bernanke & Co. being held accountable for debauching the currency? Is George W. Bush, John Ashcroft, John Yoo, Haliburton Dick, etc. being brought to justice for torturing prisoners, many of whom were innocent, and detaining them indefinitely (i.e. years) while denying them the fundamental right of habeas corpsus? No, and no again. But while the Treasury Dept steals billions of dollars of our increasingly worthless money, Caesar flies a pizza man 830 miles to make him a "casual lunch."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1168940/Obamas-fly-chef-860-miles-White-House--just-make-pizza.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104346_pf.html

I bet it was really good. I know I like chicken on my pizza. Not so sure about the hot sauce though.

On a somewhat less delicious note, hundreds of Pakistani's and Afghans have been killed by Predator Drone strikes since the Anointed One assumed the throne. The CIA and ISI believe that between 55-70 were killed at a Taliban funeral. I wonder, just maybe, if somewhere in that 55-70 people there were women, or children, or men who had never once fired a shot or picked up a weapon to bear against the US.

Of course, "Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Steven Simon believes the unmanned attacks are still worth the risk."

The risk here would be the oh so slight possibility that this could make the people in this village (if any people are left), and villages in the surrounding area very upset with the US. I guess that this could be considered that thing called "blowback." Its a pretty difficult concept to understand. No wonder the "Grand Decider" couldn't comprehend it.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/dozen-dead-in-latest-pakistan-drone-strike/

The Thune Amendment:

Millions of people would be put in danger if the bill passed, said Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is quite possibly the third most oily snake to ever set foot in the modern Senate.*

And what is this terrible danger that would put the lives of millions in obvious peril? Is it the Yellowstone caldera, which could blow at any moment?

No.

Is it the San Andreas fault line, which could start its violent quaking at any moment?

No.

Are the "terrorists" parachuting in from above, or coming up out of their vast tunnel labrynth underneath the Mid-West?

No again.

The terrible danger that was threatening the lives of millions is that people who choose to exercise their right to conceal and carry their pistol on their person wanted to be able to cross state lines with their firearm.

They still want to be able to protect themselves and their families with their concealed pistol without worrying about going to jail for possessing an "illegal" weapon or for some other trumped up charge of trafficking weapons.

The completely absurd part of the entire debate actually isn't the fact that under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is no such thing as an "illegal" weapon, for the 2nd Amendment is an absolute that protects the unalienable right of every single living human being that is an American to arm him or herself; no, the truly absurd part is that the Democratic party (specifically: Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Durbin, Menendez and Lautenberg) reached a new level of perversion and hypocrisy by declaring that the amendment infringed upon states' rights.

It is maddening. Absolutely maddening.

No state has the authority to regulate firearms. There should be no need for the Thune Amendment, because the right to keep and bear arms does not diminish one iota when a person moves across a state boundary. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of every person to own a firearm and carry it with them wherever they may go in this country. If a person uses their firearm to inflict bodily harm upon another, or uses it while committing a crime, then that person will be put before a jury of his/her peers and judged accordingly. If the person is found guilty, then he or she will go to jail.

People have always killed people. If there were no guns, people would kill people with knives. If there were no knives, people would kill people with rocks. Every single person has the inherent right to protection, and the best way to insure your own protection is to carry a pistol at all times.

But back to the Kings and Queens of hypocrisy.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the biggest proponent of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban, invoked states' rights when calling for the defeat of the Thune amendment multiple times. Well Diane, what about the rights of the states under the Federal "Assault Weapons" Ban? Did they have any say about what weaons their subjects could own? No. Not one bit. And Diane, when you proposed another ten year extension to the '94 ban, did the States have any say in the matter then? I think not. Not to mention you violated your oath of office and should be impeached (for many, many things obviously) for your support of the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

But this is not about States' rights, and it never has been. Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Menendez, Durbin, Lautenberg, etc., could not care one bit about the rights of any particular state, including their own. Rather, they care simply about increasing the powers of the central government, under their all powerful and "benevolent" leader.

But freedom loving people (and make no mistake, there are still millions of them out there) despise authoritarian, arrogant dictators. But the chains of the Constitution were broken long ago, and they no longer bind down the various abhorrent regimes who have ruled over us. But their is still one chain which has held through thick and thin. But this one chain, although still somewhat intact, has been chinked, beaten up, and abused. It has been bent severely, but it has never outright broken. This chain is the 2nd Amendment, and it is the only thing separating the United States from outright totalitarian control.

So when we think about people like Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer and Richard Durbin, we should realize, and remember, that these people would not have wanted the six million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis to be allowed to own firearms for their own defense. They would not have wanted the Cambodians to be armed. They would not have wanted the people of Leningrad to be armed, so as to defend themselves during the terrible purges in the '20s, and in '37, and all the other years. They would not have allowed the Tutsi's the ability to defend themselves either. Why?

Because only the State is allowed to have a monopoly on force. Only the agents of the State, such as the ATF, the DEA, the FBI, the CIA, state and local law enforcement, etc., are allowed to carry their weapons with them across our country. The subjects are certainly not to be entrusted to own arms, or to transport them across one state line into another.



*There are just so many. Second would have to be Jay "the internet needs to be regulated by the Feds" Rockefeller. Somewhere in there has to be Al "my daddy tried to scare people so we can regulate the world with a hoax about Global Cooling, I try to scare people so we can regulate the world with a new hoax about Global Warming" Gore. But the number one snake has got to be Chris "I got hooked up on my mortgage" Dodd. His dad just happened to put through the most restricting gun law in American history, the '68 GCA, which was copied word for word in some parts from the Nazi's '34 act which disallowed certain "undesirables" from ever owning weapons. Again, only the State can have a monopoloy on use of force.

This pretty much sums it up:

So I don't update this much, partly because I'm too busy reading (which I certainly enjoy more than writing) and partly because no one reads this. Well, there is at least one other person that I am sure has read it.

But today all I will leave you with is this, a horribly true story:



There I was, excited, black sunglasses on, black "END THE FED" shirt on proudly, ready to try to awaken people to the fact that America did not suddenly become a quasi fascist/socialist empire overnight with the election of the smooth talking Senator from the most corrupt city in the Midwest. After surveying the large crowd of people at the April 15th "Tea Party" I realized fairly quickly that majority of them did not have a clue as to how our financial system was actually run, and I was crestfallen (so as not to be too glass half empty, there was still a good number of people who probably did know how it all happens). But I had my shirt on and my homemade sign, which read: "End the Wars, End the Welfare, END THE FED," on one side, and "FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION" on the other side, and I was ready to try and enlighten someone.

So I took my sign out to the side of the road, and held it up. I was pleased to find that the majority of the people who drove by were responsive to the event in a positive way. I did see a couple middle fingers, but that was it.

And then, about 30 minutes into the protest, it happened: a white, late model Dodge van was rapidly approaching while honking its horn continuously. I happened to be holding up the side of my sign which read "FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION," since I didn't want to appear redundant while wearing my shirt. The man driving the van flicked me the bird with his pudgy little middle finger while scowling menacingly in the direction of my person. At this point I was standing by myself - the nearest person was twenty feet from me - so when the passenger, who I will presume to be the driver's wife, rolled down her window and yelled, "FASCIST!," I knew that it was directed at me. I also knew it was directed at me because she looked right at me, while hate bubbled in her beady little eyes.

Meanwhile, let me reiterate, I was holding a sign that said "FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION," and wearing a shirt that said "END THE FED," as I was very upset at the time (and still am, though I have calmed down considerably) that the US gov't, under both George II and Barack the Blessed, had just spent or allowed the Fed to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars in multiple fascist/socialist "liquidity injections" or "stimulus" or "corporate welfare" or whatever the talking heads deemed to called it. And yet I was called a fascist.

Anyone with any knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America (our supreme law, remember - "all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" - Marbury vs. Madison 1803) knows that there is absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, nothing in that document that allows the State to be merged with business in a corporatist (i.e. fascist) fashion. Likewise, anyone who knows anything about the Federal Reserve (the very privately owned and independent central bank that, in the words of Alan Greenspan, is beholden to noone), which runs our monetary policy with no oversight from the Congress and is the apex of our fascist regime, knows that someone who would be wearing a shirt that says "End the Fed," would decidedly be very antagonistic towards the fascist policies coming out of Washington.

And heres the best part: the arrogant, ignorant, rude people in that van had a "Change you can believe in" bumper sticker on their back left bumper.

Will it be wrong of me to feel no sympathy for those people, and people of their ilk, when the dollar crashes and hyperinflation runs rampant, and they are all panicking like a chicken with its head cut off, demanding for Barack or one of his minions to "do something, you've got to do something?"

I think I'll choose to shed my tears instead for all the children who never had a chance.

Democide? And why the second global bloodbath?

The following is a response to an essay I read on the Democratic Peace Blog by Rudy Rummel, who advocated that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan were necessary. He calls its a "Just Democide Doctrine." For the life of me, I can't understand how the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people can be called just, but he did it. Furthermore, our ideas of democide differ slightly. I look at democide as the systematic murder of a people by their own government. Perhaps I should not argue with the man who coined the term and spent most of his life studying it, but here it goes anyway:

Why does America have to fight them at all? Why did we have to drop the bomb? Yes, obviously the Japanese preemptively struck us at Pearl Harbor, murdering over 2,000 people and shaking American confidence to the point that our people actually allowed the central government to enslave thousands of people of Japanese ancestry indefinitely and put them in camps on the West coast, without the benefit of due process, which every living soul on this earth is entitled to by his or her creator.

But America made a lot of mistakes prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, one of them being the fact that the United States government froze all Japanese assets in the United States. These “mistakes” were part of a strategy emphasized by Henry Stimson, the secretary of war at the time (he had previously been secretary of state), who wrote in his diary at one point in 1941 about “how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (Cumings, Bruce: “Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations” Duke 1999 p. 47) Stimson was referring of course as to how the United States could manipulate the Japanese into striking America, thereby conjuring up a war frenzy throughout the nation that would not have been possibly without a preemptive Japanese strike. The American people wanted nothing of another global war - just as they wanted nothing of the first global war until the despicable and tyrannical Woodrow Wilson revved up his propaganda machines and instituted slavery once again, this time in the form of conscription.





It is also true that Roosevelt was extremely sympathetic to Churchill and Britain’s plight and related to him on multiple occasions that it was his intention to involve the United States in the conflict. The British people’s plight however, is soley a consequence of their and the United State’s previous involvement in the even more incredibly unnecessary global bloodbath of the previous generation, in which the downtrodden German people later searched desperately for a cure for their ills. That cure came in the form of true democidal maniacs such Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, and Adolph Hitler.


Furthermore, Hitler and his regime of maniacs ruthlessly murdered approximately 20.5 million people, more than a quarter of them being murdered simply because of their millenia old religious beliefs. This though was only half of the number that Josef Stalin, the democidal maniac of the Soviet Union, killed during his tenure. Stalin invaded Poland with Hitler (not that your high school history book will tell you that), and also invaded Finland in the same year (The Finns fought incredibly bravely and intelligently, but were eventually pushed back by the massive numbers Stalin could put into the war - not that your hs history book will tell you that either).




Meanwhile Roosevelt met with Stalin many times and called him “Uncle Joe.” Nevermind the fact that Stalin had already killed more people by the time of these conferences than Hitler would ever kill and had tens of millions more hard at work in the Gulag. Clearly the conflict in Europe should have been ignored by the United States, who eventually suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties during that war and dropped more megatons of explosives on German cities than both the Japanese atomic bombs combined. The reason we should not have fought a war with the Japanese are in adherence mostly with Judeo-Christian principles. First, America was woefully unprepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Once Americans were attacked though, the militia of America referred to in the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights should have been called out to defend the continental United States should the Japanese continue on and invade it.


However, as Admiral Yamamato of the Japanese Imperial Navy noted, had the Japanese invaded the mainland United States, “there would have been a rifle behind every blade of grass,” much the same as if America had invaded the Japanese mainland. The full scale invasion of the United States would have been an absolute massacre for the Japanese.



This is the secondary reason for the 2nd Amendment (so the militia of the several states can defend themselves, their family, and their land against outside attack from another country or people); the founders probably thought that the republic they had just created would never venture toward fascism or the increasing totalitarianism that has developed very quickly since the Second Great War. But that increasing totalitarianism is the primary reason of the 2nd amendment: the ability of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical and out of control government, much like the one they faced in 1861, 1898, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. (this is by no means an exhaustive list), and today. There was absolutely no danger of the Japanese conquering the United States. And fortunately for the United States, none of its vital aircraft carriers were destroyed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, as this was absolutely crucial to the success of the attack for the Japanese. Why was it necessary for America to fight the Japanese all the way across the Pacific, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, both physically and psychologically, and eventually dropping the bomb on two Japanese cities?



Furthermore, it could not be considered democide because the United States and Japan were at war with one another (nevermind how unnecessary it was), and because a people’s own government must murder them in order for it to be considered democide (at least as I understand it). Was it democide when America bombed the Germans and Italians? Or when they bombed Cambodia and Vietnam? What about Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq again? What about Iraq the third and most consequential time? What about Pakistan now? Are these all democide? I do not believe so, and Rummel has never categorized them as such. As to what they should be categorized as, I will think on that and get back to you.


Update 7/10/09: after thinking about the last paragraph above and what all those exercises in bloodletting should be labeled, I have come to the simple conclusion that it is pure murder.

We can use the Clinton regime's bombing and killing of between 1,000 and 2,500 people in the former Yugoslavia as our example.

Say that there are two families living in a duplex next to me. Each family has 5 members, 2 parents and 3 children each. The parents of each of these families are constantly fighting because they root for opposing Big 12 football teams, in this case the Oklahoma Sooners and the Texas Longhorns. The children are perfectly innocent. During the latest football season, the parents fighting escalates from verbal abuse to a few punches being thrown to outright brawling. After Oklahoma was awarded entry into the Big 12 championship even though they lost to Texas, the S really hit the fan. I hear terrible fighting noises coming from my neighbors home, so I grab my pistol and run there and I see the woman from one family about to knife the man from another family, so i discharge my weapon and shoot the woman, but in the process two totally innocent children are shot and killed.

It does not matter what good I was trying to accomplish that day, I killed innocent human beings.

It does not matter what good William Jefferson Clinton was trying to accomplish when he ordered the cluster bombs to be dropped that killed thousands of innocent people, it was still murder.

"To be more concrete, if Jones finds that his property being stolen by Smith, he has the right to repel him and try to catch him; but he has no right to repel him by bombing a building and murdering innocent people or to catch him by spraying machine gun fire into an innocent crowd.
If he does this, he is as much (or more of) a criminal aggressor as Smith is."

- Murray Rothbard

An open letter to Barack Hussein Obama

Mr. President,

You ran a campaign based on a slogan: change. Now I understand that you are a politician, and the vast majority of politicians will say anything to get elected, and today the vast majority (all but one, actually, the exception being Ron Paul) of politicians do not uphold their oath of office. You know, that oath you had to take twice, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Well anyway, I knew what you were long before you got elected: a tool of the corporate elite who wants to bankrupt the coal industry in the name of an unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming, even though there are thousands of scientists (who study this kind of thing for a living, I hasten to point out) who disagree with you. Anyway I knew that you would never lower taxes, or God forbid, get rid of the unconstitutional Federal Income tax. That might actually help the economy, removing the burden on individuals and businesses and helping good, honest commerce thrive once again. But you're somewhat of a marxist after all, and Marx's 2nd plank of his manifesto was a "heavy progressive income tax." Then again we've had that since 1913, but it hasn't changed, and not too many people have protested anyway.

You have allowed the Federal Reserve, that privately owned central bank who inflates our money supply by printing off massive amounts of money and creating it out of thin air, to continue functioning; you have even allowed it to amass vast new powers, putting to rest any myth that the American financial system was actually a free one, as it was founded to be. Your socialist/fascist policies have saddled multiple generations of Americans with an ever increasing debt, and your first year budget deficit makes even George W. Bush look like a fiscal conservative. Please tell me where the change is here. Thats right, there is no change. The more things change, the more they stay the same. If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Just like George W. Bush tried to stimulate the economy, you tried to stimulate the economy. Just like George W. Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens, so do you want amnesty for illegal aliens.

If by change you meant the outright nationalization of certain industries and companies, such as General Motors, then you have succeeded. Congratulations, you are the proud new owner of a car company that not too many people want to buy cars from anymore. How are we going to pay for all this again?

But I digress. You want to ban the sale, transfer and trade of all semi automatic weapons, robbing the people of America of their unalienable right to self defense from criminals of both the private and public sector, and completely infringing upon the Second Amendment. You know, Barack, there is a reason it is the Second Amendment. Its not the 5th, or the last; the founders did not just throw it in the Bill or Rights so people could go hunting whenever they wanted to. They intended for every man to be armed, as Thomas Jefferson stated, for the sole reason of defending oneself from a tyrannical, totalitarian, out of control government. Sort of like the kind of government your currently presiding over - one that has destroyed the value of our currency and plunged our nation into multiple immoral and unconstitutional wars.

You have expanded the war in Afghanistan, taking it into Pakistan, all while your country is tens of trillions of dollars in debt. Have you learned nothing from history? Were you not paying attention when the Russians were there for nearly ten years, and still could not conquer the country? What about the British? They tried three times to conquer the Afghans, and were repulsed all three times. When will enough people have died? Do the deaths of innocent civilians by your predator drones have no effect on your conscience?

Your Department of Homeland Security has labeled all people who believe in the Constitution of the United States, and the principles it was founded on, as domestic terrorists. Anyone who supports Congressman Ron Paul, or former presidential candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, have also been labeled domestic terrorists. You have kept people in prison without trial, violating their constitutional rights. You have even expanded the Bush policy of the outright denial of habeas corpus. But you call it prolonged detention. You also speak more eloquently (after all, its the best goddamn teleprompters our money can buy) than Bush the Lesser and have a certain charm about you, so your supporters (the same ones who RAILED against Bush) still think you are the best thing to happen to the world since sliced bread.

You have failed to prosecute the Bush administration officials who concocted the evil policies of torture. You have failed to prosecute George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for torture, but more importantly, for their illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional war of aggression in Iraq. This empirical exercise in bombing a nation into ruin, occupying it, and then rebuilding it has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention trillions of dollars that America has had to borrow or print off. But not only do you not prosecute these evil, power hungry men, you keep their war going. You promised the American people the troops would be out of Iraq in sixteen months. Already that has been proven to be a lie, and even when some troops do come out in 18, 19 or 24 months from now, 50,000 will still stay there, in harms way. Again, what change is there to speak of?

Most scary to myself, being a 20 year old college student trying to make ends meet, is your quest to create a "civilian national defense force." Your Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, has made it clear on video that he wants all Americans to do mandatory civil service, going to camps for 3-4 months to be "reeducated" or whatever we will do there. Is this Cuba? Is this Russia? China? North Korea? What gives the State the authority to pluck me from my daily life and transport me, by force, to a reeducation camp, where I will be trained to be a "civilian defense soldier?" Then again, what gave LBJ the authority to forcefully remove young, vibrant 18 year old men from their families, sweethearts, and friends, and make them slug through the jungles and foothills of Southeast Asia, where at any moment an anti personnel mine could pop up and disembowel them, or a snipers bullet could come spiraling towards their forehead. I will tell you right now that I will not go to one of these reeducation camps where I will be made to become part of a "civilian national defense force," and I pity the statist fool who tries to come and take me.

Please take notice of this. It is my redress of grievances. I am sure the National Security Agency will be aware of it soon, seeing as how they record and filter every single phone call made in America, read every e-mail and fax, and violate countless other of my liberties in the name of the "War on Terror" and the "War on Drugs."

Oh, that reminds me of another thing. Please stop regulating what people can or cannot put into their body. I like aspartame in my diet coke. It could kill me. So could cocaine, heroin, or most of all, alcohol, seeing as it kills more people every year than marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine does combined, even though your regime, like others before it, so graciously allow your subjects to drink the addictive liquid. The 9th and 10th Amendments to our Constitution state that you have no authority to regulate these things, and only the state and local governments do. Please end the War on Drugs, as it costs the American tax payers half a trillion dollars a year, not to mention countless lives. Prohibition leads to the black market drug trade, which leads to gangs, which leads to violence over drug selling territory and operations. Please end prohibition. It will not stop drug use, because nothing will ever stop drug use, but it will end America's criminal violence problem. Just like history showed us it would when the federal government stopped regulating alcohol, and people stopped dying on the streets of our cities.

To conclude Mr. Obama, basically, you have been even worse of a president than even my incredibly cynical mind could have imagined. Already you have me longing for the relatively small, yet out of control deficits from the eight years of the 2nd Bush regime. Someday your charm will wear off. There will come a day when you are caught without your teleprompter, and the American people will see you as you really are.

Josh Parris

The State of Affairs:

While watching Schindler's List for the first time, a movie that I have wanted to see for quite a while, I am finding it difficult to stay positive as so many men, women, and children are executed by the SS. It makes me ponder the human condition; it appears the fact that approximately 262 million people were murdered by totalitarian governments in the 20th century has absolutely no place in mainstream American consciousness, or the world at large. How many lives will have to be taken away before the people of the world awaken to the fact that absolute power in the hands of a few individuals has, time after time, proven to be absolutely murderous to those not in power.

(For more information on "Democide," and the 262 million souls who were exterminated by the State that reigned over them, visit Dr. R.J. Rummel's website: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/)

The terrible crimes of the regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito, Hitler, etc., seem to have left few impressions in the minds of citizens worldwide. Granted, there are certainly many people aware of the horrors that have been perpetrated, and more and more are enlightened every day. But the vast majority of the people of the world are still slumbering, able to be manipulated by propaganda (mostly purely statist propaganda) at every turn. Even the majority of Americans, who are still able to experience more liberty than any other people in the world, have allowed themselves to be socially engineered into the confines of the "left-right paradigm," and elected yet another fascist/socialist to the presidency in 2008.



However, it is very important to understand that this decent into collectivism, and with it, totalitarianism, did not begin spontaneously with the election of Barack Obama to the White House. America began its spiral into collectivism many decades ago, and at the same time America has been centralizing power within the federal government on a scale the founders of our country would find inconceivable (even Alexander Hamilton). Jefferson and Madison's dream of a central government that had powers few and far between with a certain set of inalienable rights (the Bill of Rights, as it came to be) has been completely nullified over the past century, as America has endured war after war and recession after recession after depression. Congress has given up it's constitutional right to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" and given it to an all powerful, privately owned, central bank, which has the power to create money and credit out of thin air, as Marx called for in the 5th plank of his manifesto.


Congress has also ceded its authority to declare war, as it stipulates in the Constitution, to a unitary executive, the "decider" as George W. Bush dubbed it, who has the ability to send America's brave men to kill and be killed on behalf of the American empire and the United Nations, which was called "the last, best hope for peace," by its creators. But the United Nations is simply a system for international control, a global government. Granted, it only has power as long as the United States recognizes it and the American tax payer continues to subsidize it, but as long as this continues its power and influence will grow. Power, once gained, is rarely, if ever, relinquished.



This space will be dedicated to education. People must first be educated before they can fight; they must learn before they can begin to educate more people to oppose the power elite and their aspirations for control over the globe. They must have the wherewithal to question intently what they read in the newspaper, and what they hear the mainstream media recite on television. They must learn and understand the principles of limited government and personal liberty; that economic markets must be allowed to work and not be hindered by government controls, regulations, and taxes. Not to mention the deficit spending that crowds out private investment - and the Federal Reserves' vast increases in the money supply, which causes inflation, the hidden tax.


We must take the lessons that history has taught us and apply them to our times, for the record clearly shows that central planning and collectivism will not work, and people will only be able to prosper and thrive when they demand liberty and justice for all.