Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures

by Derek Sheriff, 10AC

James Ostrowski, author of Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot recently wrote, “In the realm of politics, the best chance the liberty movement has is not winning elections but convincing states and localities to stop cooperating with the federal government. I believe the Tenth Amendment Movement, as it is known, has great potential.”

An important revolutionary principle that American colonists learned from reading “Cato’s Letters” in the mid-18th century was this: Unjust laws must be resisted immediately, or they will set the stage for additional encroachments. One of “Cato’s Letters” explains:

“A nation has but two sorts of usurpation to fear, one from their neighbors and another from their own magistrates. Nor is a foreign usurpation more formidable than a domestic, which is the most dangerous of the two, by being hardest to remove and generally stealing upon the people by degrees, is fixed before is scarce felt or apprehended.”

Thomas Jefferson had a personal copy of “Cato’s Letters” in his home library and he put this principle into action when the so called federalists began arresting their political opponents and throwing them in jail. While still serving as vice president, he secretly urged immediate resistance by drafting what have come to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The reason he drafted those resolutions was to convince state legislators that nullification was the most appropriate form of immediate resistance . The reason I wrote this essay, is to convince American libertarians today of the same thing. I won’t go into detail explaining what nullification is. There are plenty of other articles widely available which already do that – not to mention Tom Woods’ latest, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

The Problem of Power

In an oration in 1772, John Adams declared that, “Liberty, under every conceivable form of government is always in danger.”

26 years later, he personified that very danger when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing the president and others in the federal government a crime. Adams showed us that government is the greatest threat to liberty because it always tends toward the destruction of the individual’s natural rights.

Because government is such a dangerous concentration of power, American revolutionaries recognized the absolute necessity of limiting government power and dividing it into as many competing jurisdictions as possible. The hope was that under such an arrangement, the federal government would be held in check and people would have the option to move freely between more powerful, but competing states. Competition would keep their multiple jurisdictions from becoming intolerably oppressive.

This decentralized condition, which is called federalism, should be very desirable to libertarians. Why? Because if they are forced to live under a government at all, this condition at least makes it much easier for them to move to a state with more freedom or chip away at their own state government, to the point that it barely escapes being no government at all. So why is this not our condition today? At least one very important reason is because we have not insisted that our state governments use nullification.

For the first time since the 1850s, such a condition is a real possibility in America. Political, technological and economic conditions are coinciding to create what could be a perfect storm. In military terminology, conditions such as weather can be used as force multipliers, which make a given force more effective than that same force would be without it. In addition to making the most of economic and technological force multipliers, what is needed next is greater acceptance and approval by the majority of Americans for the widespread use of state nullification. Successfully gaining that acceptance and approval at a time when the federal government is perceived as being bankrupt, both financially and morally, could bring about radical decentralization sooner than most libertarians could have imagined just two decades ago. In his 1975 research article entitled, The American Revolution and the Minority Myth, William F. Marina wrote:

“What I am suggesting is that the question of legitimacy is really at the heart of the whole process of revolution. A revolution is impossible unless a majority withdraws its allegiance from the old regime and begins to place it elsewhere. Often that process is masked to the point that when the old regime collapses, the fall appears more ‘sudden’ than was actually the case.”

Considering what lies ahead of us economically, it seems not only plausible, but probable, that people will soon begin to rapidly transfer legitimacy from Washington, DC to their state capital, partly from disgust and partly out of sheer necessity.

Nullification: Revolutionary or Reformist?

This scenario has nothing to do with overturning the constitutional order. In fact, it is precisely how the constitutional order was supposed to work in the first place. The use of nullification by states to neutralize acts of federal usurpation is both constitutional and revolutionary at the core. William J. Watkins explains it like this in his book, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy:

“The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written over two decades after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain, represent a reaffirmation of the spirit of 1776. At the core, the Resolutions are intrepid statements in favor of self-government and limited central authority. A product of the political and constitutional battlegrounds of the 1790?s, the resolutions serve to link the federal union created by the Constitution with the aspirations of the patriots of the American Revolution. Indeed the touch of the author of the Declaration of Independence is unmistakable when one reads the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”

Unlike the reformist strategy which seeks to mobilize power within Washington, DC in order to reform and redirect that power, nullification seeks to diminish and redistribute that power through relentless, decentralized, but ideally coordinated, acts of state level, constitutional resistance.

Over the past few years, state legislators across the country have created a heavy wave of nullification legislation. We libertarians need to grab our surfboards!

Revolutionizing the Tea Party

As libertarians, we must play a leading role by carrying out the labor-intensive but very fruitful task of selling nullification to non-libertarians who are already mobilized. These Americans are extremely upset and have become very active in grassroots organizations. Unfortunately, they are transfixed by national politics and attribute too much importance to wining in federal elections. What they have not yet realized is that their almost exclusive reliance on electoral means to oppose federal tyranny will only get them more of the same. Libertarians should, therefore, act alongside them in ways that do not compromise our principles, while simultaneously wining their support for nullification legislation and directing their attention to state level solutions that involve more radical means of resistance. Those running for, or already elected to state office need to be sold on the constitutionality, morality and effectiveness of nullification. The good news is that unlike beltway insiders, most of these people actually live and work in your community.

Libertarian intellectuals, leaders and grassroots organizations have been busy manufacturing the tools and preparing the soil for us. Tom Woods, for example, has just written what some have called a handbook on nullification. One well known talk show host has called it, “a battle plan” and “the answer to our prayers.” TheTenth Amendment Center has been tracking recent nullification legislation, writing new and improved bills, and working with state legislators to get them introduced and passed.

On top of all that, a host of organizations like Downsize DC, Campaign For Liberty, Daily Paul, and others have joined the Tenth Amendment Center and libertarian activist Trevor Lyman in sponsoring the Nullify Now! tour, something that advocates of this essential principle may have thought impossible just a few years ago. The tour will feature speakers almost all libertarians know and respect – Tom Woods, Jim Babka, Tom Mullen, Michael Boldin, Jack Hunter and others. These speakers will give grassroots activists and people in state government a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification.

The ground has been prepared and conditions are favorable for radical decentralization . Whether a critical mass of libertarians will get involved in this new movement and make use of the tools available to them before this decisive point in history has passed us by remains to be seen. You can be sure that there are plenty of politicians in Washington, DC who live in fear of the day that states, guided by liberty activists, stand together and once again make use of that powerful weapon called nullification. That’s why they want it to remain taboo to even discuss it. And it’s why we libertarians must do everything we can to advertise it.

Derek J. Sheriff [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98? can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

from Cryptogon

Conscription typically means compulsory military service. That’s not necessarily the case here, but it’s close enough.

Will there be arm bands? Happy Hope and Change.

Via: GovTrack:

HR 5741 IH

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5741

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

by Henry Makow, PhD

Some time ago, Stan Monteith, a pioneer NWO researcher and broadcaster, found a typewritten copy of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the papers of Col. E.M. House at Yale University.

This seemed like confirmation of the widely held view that House (1858-1938) was a Rothschild agent. House was an “adviser” to Woodrow Wilson and FDR. It makes sense that he would have a copy of the Blueprint for the New World Order in his possession. He probably referred to it while writing his political manifesto, “Philip Dru Administrator.” (1912)

The 99-page House typescript is a different English translation from the Victor Marsden translation, which is most commonly used. (I suspect “The Protocols” were originally written in French, originating in the Mizraim Lodge.)

So far, I have just compared the First Protocol (8 pages.) The most obvious difference is the title. Marsden’s book is, “The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

The translation in House’s possession is, “Protocols of the Meeting of the Zionist Men of Wisdom.” In this translation, “meeting” is singular and the “Elders” are clearly identified as “Zionists.”  The significance is that “Zionist” used here is a movement for world domination, not one confined to establishing a Jewish homeland.

The second point of interest is a footnote in House’s typescript that does not appear in the Marsden translation. In relation to “subjugating all governments to our super-government” there is an asterisk reference to “A.C. Shamakov, “International Secret Government” Moscow, 1912.”

This book is hard to find. It was sold for $805 by Christie’s auction house in 1994, along with a few other Russian examples of Judaica. Interestingly,
Shamakov was not a Communist Jewish Mason of the kind that studied the “Protocols.”

On the contrary, House’s version references a notorious “anti Semite” a man whose career was devoted to exposing the Illuminati Jewish conspiracy.

His real name was A.S. Shmakov and he was a lawyer, author and member of the Duma. He became famous when he volunteered to help the prosecution in the famous Mendel Beilis case in 1913, where a group of Saint Petersburg Jews was accused of the ritual killing of a youth, Andrey Jushinsky.

It is puzzling that House’s version of the Protocols would reference an opponent, unless the translation originated with the opposition, and came into House’s possession.

This interpretation is supported by another footnote on the first page explaining that “The Goys = THE GENTILES.” If this version originated inside the lodge, they would not need this explanation.

MORE ON THE TRANSLATION

House’s version is of great interest to scholars. Here are some examples from the first Protocol.

Marsden: “our watchword is force and make-believe.”

House:  “our password is power and hypocrisy.”

Marsden: “their youth has grown stupid on classicism”

House: “their young people are insensible to ought else than classism and early vice.”

Marsden: “by the law of nature, right lies in force”

House: “according to the law of being, right is might.”

Marsden: “The doctrine of squaring accounts is precisely as strong as the means of which it makes use.”

House: “A doctrine of self-interest is as potent as are methods employed by it.”

CONCLUSION

The “Protocols” is the master plan of the New World Order, and the most read book after the Bible. But unlike the Bible, which its seeks to overthrow, there has been little attention paid to the nuances of meaning found in the different translations.

These nuances are significant, as the above examples suggest.

Stan Monteith  is selling photocopies of the  House translation for $15 plus postage. His number at Radio Liberty is : 1-800-544-8927

by Marilyn M. Barnewall, LDL

Individual states within our Great Nation have been and continue passing legislation making it clear they are independent, sovereign entities apart from the federal government.  They say if they choose, they can declare their independence.  They can reclaim state sovereignty and protect themselves from federal government oppression.  There are many good legal opinions supportive of that strategy.  There are many good legal opinions that oppose it.  Under the circumstance of a failed federal government, those who say “yea” probably win the argument.

What needs to be in place for a state to function without the federal government?  There is a difference in being sovereign and in being functionally sovereign.  There are many things that need to be in place, but the most critical thing on which everything hinges for success is a state banking system.

“We already have that,” you say?  Unless your name is North Dakota, you do not.

I have written about the attack on our independent banks by a federal regime that seeks global governance.  Our savings and loan industry was similarly attacked (and made to fail) in the 1980s to pave the way for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – for volume liar and subprime loans and resultant, as Warren Buffet says, “financial weapons of mass destruction” (mortgage-based derivatives).

The capability to control your state’s monetary policy and the distribution of your currency is not only needed.  It is required.  Are your legislators serious about state sovereignty?  If so, these things are in the legislative works.  If they are just pandering to an anxious voter base, they are not.

When hearing the words “State Bank,” most people think the term means “state-chartered bank.”  A State Bank is quite different from a state-chartered bank.  The 90-year old Bank of North Dakota is the only state-owned bank in America.  It has a history of success and has kept unemployment in North Dakota lower than 5 percent as of March 2010.  North Dakota is at the top of the nation’s state economic health list, too.  The North Dakota State Bank is a big part of the reason.

A State Bank is kind of a mini-Federal Reserve – only it’s a State rather than a Federal Reserve Bank and is a legal part of state government.  The Federal Reserve System, a privately-owned corporation not part of the federal government, has Member Banks – nationally-chartered banks (they usually have the word “national” in their name).  The Bank of North Dakota also has “Member Banks” – state-chartered banks.  The Bank of North Dakota, for example, provides its own state deposit insurance coverage – like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC – in the case of a State Bank, State Deposit Insurance Corporation).

Nationally-chartered banks (those licensed by the federal rather than state government) can do business in states that have a State Bank system, but may not be Member Banks because of their national charters.  By which authority a bank is chartered determines whether it will be a Member Bank of the Federal Reserve System or a Member Bank of its State Banking System.  The Federal Reserve System clears checks and performs other monetary functions for its members. It establishes monetary policy for the nation.  Why?  Because the Fed is the only alternative – the only currency distribution system available in America – except in North Dakota.  State Banks can replace Federal Reserve System functions and clear checks and perform other monetary functions for Member Banks.  At the moment, North Dakota utilizes the Federal Reserve System’s check clearing functions – but it doesn’t have to, if need be.

A State Bank (exemplified by the Bank of North Dakota) is the official depository institution for all state collections and fees.  Such a controlled source of funds is called a captive deposit base.  Statistics do not lie.  The Bank of North Dakota has made that state profitable even during the trying economic times created by the federal government.

The State Bank pays the State Treasurer a competitive rate of deposit interest but, even more important, loan policy is determined by the State owning the bank, not the federal government or the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve System.  An added plus is that the State can determine loan policies supportive of state assets.  In North Dakota, loan policy supports agriculture and energy.  In Alaska, Texas and Oklahoma, it could support oil, from drilling to making special pipes needed by that industry.  In Colorado, it could be uranium mining, natural gas, and skiing while in Utah it could be coal (and skiing).  Banks with lenders that have skills to serve specific industries is key to utilizing credit to support a state’s economic growth.

The standard used by Bank of North Dakota to make flexible loans based on the local economy can also be used by states to create a credible, sustainable currency.  In Colorado, the currency could be backed by gold, silver, uranium and natural gas — oil shale, too.  In Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska, gold, silver and oil (and other available commodities) can be used.  Copper can be used.  Lithium can be used.  Various other commodities in rich abundance per state can be used.  The trick is to get away from a fiat currency system dependent upon ever increasing business and consumer debt for its survival.  That system – along with an irresponsible and corrupt Congress – has bankrupted our nation.

Think back to the bureaucratic inaction as we watched the devastation of Hurricane Katrina – or look at the current crisis in the Gulf of Mexico.  A State Bank can build its own private disaster fund and eliminate dependence on FEMA.  The North Dakota Bank expects flooding in a city this year and has already created a disaster fund to handle it.  After two months of federal indecision and excuse making in the Gulf of Mexico, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana could have utilized a State Bank to take more direct action to protect his state.  A Louisiana State Bank would have broadened his options.

Though much is written about states reserving the right to sovereignty, very little (if anything), has been written about how sovereign states can avoid the economic chaos awaiting if the state has done no planning to prevent it.  People and businesses need access to money.  Both need to pay bills.  The currency must be supported by an asset available to the state.  A State Bank provides a currency/credit/deposit distribution system that allows state government and its citizens to function.  It provides a check-clearing and a credit system.  That system needs to be acceptable to Brazil – if you want bananas in the winter.  It needs to be acceptable to various nations that provide pharmaceuticals taken by people whose lives depend on them.

It’s nice to be sovereign – until a dear one languishes in a hospital, unable to get access to drugs for heart disease or diabetes, because your “sovereign state” didn’t plan far enough ahead to ensure financial stability that allows and supports international trade.

It is doubtful Pfizer is going to send a shipment of drugs to be distributed throughout a newly-declared sovereign state and accept as payment a newly-printed currency with nothing backing it and no distribution system in place.  Somewhere during the trade process, a settlement bank that deals with foreign currencies and a credit system ensuring payment must be available.

What do you do for people in your state’s hospitals if you don’t have a monetary distribution system set up that has planned for international trade – and thousands of other situations just as serious?  Other, states still a part of the federal system and using the Yankee dollar may not want to do business with you either.  They have their own economic/financial problems.  They can’t afford to take on those of your state, too.  Without a reliable financial services system in place, what products – especially agricultural – will you have available?

To be functionally sovereign, states must create their own currency.  If your state doesn’t have its own currency, there are justifiable reasons the federal government will not recognize a declaration of sovereignty.  Saying you’re sovereign and being sovereign are two different things.

At the top of the planning list must be a currency distribution system.  Without it, States are tied to the federal system in place (the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency and the regulators who work for all of the above).  Why do you need a banking system?  Can’t everyone just carry around gold or silver coins like they did before governments began printing fiat currency?  Paper currency isn’t fiat when it’s backed by a solid commodity with a price set by the marketplace – and the commodity doesn’t have to be gold.  That, then, is second on the planning list.  First, distribution; then a currency you can distribute.  Education, highways, and state, county and city services like law enforcement are necessary.  People need to be paid.  They need to buy groceries.  A financial distribution system is required.

The concept of a State Banking System began at a historically similar time.  East coast banking powers had too much influence over who got credit and how the credit was to be structured. Interestingly, East Coast bankers called the North Dakota experiment “communist” or “socialist.”  When the State Bank concept is compared to what is in place at the federal level with the corporate policies of the non-federal Federal Reserve System and the too big to jail bankers on both coasts, State Banks come out smelling like a capitalist rose.  No one wants a globally managed financial system that will be used to back the nations of the world into a global government.

Can a State declare itself sovereign if it does not have sufficient power to determine its own currency and monetary policy?  Not only is it a good question.  It is the key question to the core problem.