There is nothing conservative about the Republican ‘War’ Party

Neocons have so corrupted the Republican Party that in order to be considered a viable national presidential candidate and to be embraced by the rank and file and Tea Party right, one must openly advocate for an open-ended continuation of the war on terror and a de facto war against Iran.

Of course, the Republican Party was born of corporatism and nurtured on bloodshed, so it’s no surprise that the masses, programmed as they are and conned into an unreasoning fear of U.S.-created Islamic booger bears, are eager to embrace a candidate who pledges unwavering support to Israel and who wants to continue slaughtering Middle Easterners armed, trained, funded and inspired by America and its allies — including Israel.

As historian Bruce Catton wrote in “The Civil War,” in 1860 Abraham Lincoln wanted to be the nominee of the new Republican Party — a party that consisted of an amalgam of former members of the defunct Whig Party, Free-soilers (those who believed all new territories should be slave-free), business leaders who wanted a central government that would protect industry and ordinary folk who wanted a homestead act that would provide free farms in the West.

Catton wrote: “The Republicans nominated Lincoln partly because he was considered less of an extremist than either (Senator William H.) Seward or (Salmon P.) Chase; he was moderate on the slavery question, and agreed that the Federal government lacked power to interfere with the peculiar institution in the states. The Republican platform, however, did represent a threat to Southern interests. It embodied the political and economic program of the North — upward revision of the tariff, free farms in the West, railroad subsidies, and all the rest.”

When seven lower-South states decided that Lincoln’s election ushered in what they believed would be a reign of unacceptable Republicanesque despotism, they terminated their relationship with the federal government, a relationship into which they had voluntarily joined and which politicians of the several New England states had for years rightly believed could be voluntarily terminated (and in fact that advocated for separation often, fearing what they considered a despotism of Southern agrarianism). When Lincoln proved himself duplicitous by going back on his word and sending a fleet to resupply federal troops at Fort Sumter, prompting the firing on those fleets by batteries from South Carolina, four upper-South states quickly followed suit.

From there Lincoln embarked on series of decidedly unconstitutional and unconservative steps, including conscripting men to fight his battles, raising taxes, printing greenbacks, sending federal troops to arrest state legislators, arresting contrarian editors and shutting down newspapers, and sending his army to invade the South in order to “preserve” the union.

The party promptly consolidated its power on the ruins and destruction of the South during the Northern War of Aggression and its aftermath. And destroying the South once wasn’t enough. Republicans were quickly advocating a second full-scale attack when Southern States declined to ratify the 14th Amendment — an amendment that has acquired such magical powers since its adoption (it was never constitutionally ratified) that it has granted federal judges the power to create and change state and federal law on their whim and invent all manner of “rights” once unimaginable. It is upon this amendment that the “right” of women to murder their babies, the “right” of gay people to be married and the “right” of corporations to contribute vast sums to purchase politicians are cobbled. It is upon this amendment that federal judges strike down state-passed referenda and force people to give up their right of religious conscious in order to placate homosexuals who want to purchase wedding cakes or wedding flowers or wedding photography services.

Thanks to Lincoln’s war and his Republican coterie, federalism is dead; and the nation, once a republican union of states, is now nothing more than a corporatist- and bankster-driven nation-state controlled by the District of Criminals and a handful of oligarchs.

This is certainly not the view of Lincoln to which most Republican voters — nay, most Americans — subscribe. To them, anything and everything Lincoln did — however evil or unconstitutional it might have been — was necessary and, therefore, acceptable to “save the union.”

Robert E. Lee recognized in the early days of reconstruction the danger inherit in the destruction of federalism and the federal government’s actions toward the South. Writing to Lord Acton in 1866, Lee said, “[T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

And that’s exactly the path American government policy has followed since.

Conservative Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, who fought the New Deal, labor unions and America’s entry into World War II, said: “[T]he principal purpose of the foreign policy of the United States is to maintain the liberty of our people. … Its purpose is not to reform the entire world or spread sweetness and light and economic prosperity to peoples who have lived and worked out their own salvation for centuries, according to their customs, and to the best of their abilities.”

Most Americans who consider themselves conservative have never heard of Russell Kirk. That’s a shame. He’s one of the great thinkers of the 20th century and considered the father of modern American conservativism. In his writings he created a number of principles of conservatism. One of them is: “In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else — even above its own life — its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.”

Of course, that’s not the policy of the neocons, who see it as the duty of America to police the world and “spread democracy” even when the people it’s being spread to don’t want or need it. If the people decide they don’t want or need it, American government just deposes that regime and installs another… or not, as in the case of Libya, which has become a hellish cauldron of anarchy, bloodshed and terror for the poor inhabitants who enjoyed a prosperous and relatively free and safe existence before American drones and NATO bombs were unleashed in order to take out Moammar Gadhafi. The Republican rank and file embraces this policy of military adventurism, thanks to Bush the Second and his policy of “kill them over there so we don’t have to kill them here.”

And just who or what are necons? The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and ’70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left’s social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union’s fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America’s defense spending and its role in the world.

They are included in the Zionists and Israel-firsters I have been writing to you about the past two weeks in “Why do Americans love war?” and “Israel, ISIS and the end of days.”

The trouble for rank and file conservatives who embrace this neocon foreign policy is one of cognitive dissonance. They are willing and eager to send their money and, worse, their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters into foreign lands on behalf of Christians caught in the millennial-long civil war between Islamic thugs and being slaughtered by U.S.-backed ISIS criminals, to send their money and their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters to back “rebels” seeking to overthrow regimes deemed unacceptable (Iraq, Libya, Syria and, if they get their wish, Iran) by the Council on Foreign Relations-controlled U.S. State Department and/or propaganda ministry, or to send their money and their sons and daughters and other people’s sons and daughters to back rebels (either overtly or covertly) in the U.S.-inspired Ukrainian coup, because they believe in “ freedom.” Yet they applaud Lincoln’s efforts to quash a secession (it wasn’t even a rebellion, as the Confederacy sought to live as a peaceful neighbor) that led to the death — directly and indirectly — of close to 1 million Americans because he preserved the Union.

When Bush the First launched the first grand Middle East excursion, Kirk said in a speech opposing the war:

Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous, but so are nearly all the masters of the “emergent” African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?

And what would be the outcome of Bush’s war? Kirk predicted:

We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.

Bush the Second and his regime assured us that we would be made safer by “fighting them over there.” But 14 years later, and were still being told there’s a radical Muslim somewhere nearby seeking to cause us harm. So whose prediction turned out right: Kirk’s or Bush’s?

No nation ever engages in foreign wars without at the same time initiating subtle and silent war on its own people. The war on terror has given us trillions of dollars in debt, reduced liberty, increased government spying and created a government even more hostile to its own people.

Finally, conservatives — true conservatives — are about small government. There is nothing conservative about a war party because wars are predicated on big government and fiat money, especially multiple wars on multiple continents. Yet a war party is apparently what Republicans have become because all of the presumptive candidates for the party’s next presidential election back an interventionist, wartime foreign policy… and that seems to be exactly what “conservatives” want.

Where is the information?

Subject: Article, “The IRS and the propaganda that perpetuates it”

In this article the writer states that after the IRS was formed in 1913 that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Can you please tell me where I can find this information because the 16th Amendment says that it was ratified February 3, 1913?

I would really appreciate any information you might have.

K.G. Sensenig

Dear K.G.,

This information is readily available. Bill Benson and M J “Red” Beckman wrote an excellent book on the subject.  A short article on the key points by Benson can be read here. Here’s an interview with Beckman on the Alex Jones show.

Best wishes,


Resurrecting the spirit of Patrick Henry

Two hundred and forty years ago this week, Patrick Henry made his famous “Give me liberty or give me death” speech to the Second Virginia Convention, which was meeting at St. John’s Church to avoid interference from Virginia Governor John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, and his Royal Marines.

On March 23, 1775, in proposing to organize a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry in every Virginia county, Henry addressed the assembly with these words:

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace; but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Now read it again and substitute the words “British” and “Great Britain” with federal government and the words “armies,” “fleets” and “navies” with federal agencies and their armed enforcers and reckon whether our situation is eerily similar.

Requiring a concealed carry permit is the definition of ‘infringed’

Gun rights activists are applauding the actions of the Iowa Legislature, which recently voted to repeal a measure requiring the state’s residents to obtain a permit prior to purchasing a handgun.

And while requiring a permit to purchase a handgun in addition to a concealed carry permit to carry the purchased weapon is certainly an onerous burden and an obvious 2nd Amendment violation, so is Iowa’s — and any other state’s — requirement to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. All states have different requirements for obtaining permits. Some are more obtrusive than others. But Iowans, even though it’s a “shall-issue” state, must pay $50 and complete an approved training course to be eligible.

Requiring a permit is essentially the government’s taking away your right and then forcing you to purchase it back. Yet Americans accept this “in the public interest.”

Governments always use altruistic code words to get the people to surrender their rights.

Ditch the diabetes villain that lurks in your diet

Diabetes and blood sugar problems are killing millions of people. A new report shows that much of the blame comes from an item you eat every day.

Researchers writing in Mayo Clinic Proceedings pointed out that a large body of research now shows that our penchant for eating foods with added sugar are a leading cause of diabetes and prediabetes. The main culprit: fructose, an added form of sugar we usually swallow in the form of high fructose corn syrup. This lethal form of sugar is added to shocking number of foods, including soft drinks, spaghetti sauces, ketchup, bread and salad dressing.

According to this report, the dietary guidelines that assert it is OK to take in up to 25 percent of daily calories as added sugar is a big health mistake. There needs to be a “drastic” reduction in added sugar. In particular, we need to eliminate most of the added fructose from processed foods.

If we don’t take care of this problem, warn the scientists, the diabetes epidemic will continue to grow. Right now, about 10 percent of adults globally have type 2 diabetes. That total has more than doubled since 1980. In the U.S., almost 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes and 86 million have prediabetes.

“At current levels, added-sugar consumption, and added-fructose consumption in particular, are fueling a worsening epidemic of type 2 diabetes,” warned researcher James J. DiNicolantonio, a cardiovascular research scientist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. “Approximately 40 percent of U.S. adults already have some degree of insulin resistance with projections that nearly the same percentage will eventually develop frank diabetes.”

Although fruits and vegetables contain fructose, the amounts are usually too small to be a problem. Plus, those foods contain natural chemicals that help the body defend itself against diabetes. According to the researchers, eating more fruits and vegetables while eliminating processed foods with added fructose “may be one of the single most effective strategies for ensuring one’s robust future health.”

How will we purchase food post-collapse?

Dear Bob,

You suggest taking the money from my IRA account and buy gold. But how do I buy groceries with gold coins or even real silver coins? Buying non-perishable goods (I already do that on some things) but one will need real cash for the perishable food. Should one buy lots of present day coins and stash them for shopping in the future?

Marilyn F.

Dear Marilyn F.,

Presumably your IRA is for your use down the road — in your retirement — and is not necessary for purchasing groceries right now. Since I believe that the District of Criminals has its eyes on our retirement accounts, I decided long ago to cash in my IRA and purchase both gold and silver to keep it out of the government’s hands. (By the way, I think right now that silver is a better buy than gold at current prices.) However, you should not tie up all your liquid assets in only gold and silver. Keep some cash on hand for now and for the beginning of the financial collapse. I recommend you keep on hand enough cash to cover at least one month’s worth of bills. This will help you survive during bank runs and the initial chaotic period.

As for using gold and silver, think of them as commodities for barter. As the dollar gets lower on the dollar index, people will begin thinking about their silver and gold. The use of silver as money is sure to come before gold, because silver coins predated 1965 are still legal tender. This means they look like our clacker coins do now but are 90 percent silver. They are still legal tender and are more valuable than their face value (proving the devaluation of the dollar) because of their silver content. One of the best ways to buy these is in bags with $1,000 face value of dimes, quarters, half-dollars and silver dollars.

After the collapse, you will be swapping a silver dime for a loaf of bread, a silver dollar for a bag of groceries; those with fiat money will be spending sacks full of “dollars” for groceries. There is precedent for this. In Weimar Germany during the collapse, there is the story of a person who would order a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. “If you want to save money,” he was told, “and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time.” I believe this type of inflation is what we have in store.

Gold coins are available in 1-ounce, 1/2-ounce, 1/4-ounce and 1/10-ounce sizes. For survival purposes, you may want to have some of the smaller sizes on hand because they would be easier to use than larger sizes.

For more information, here is an article I wrote several years ago on how to buy gold. The values in the article have changed, but the information is still relevant.

Best wishes,


Israel, ISIS and the end of days

This is the second of a two-part series. “Why do Americans love war?” was the first installment of the series.

Apocalypticism or apocalyptic thinking seems to dominate most discussions revolving around the rise of ISIS/ISIL and the United States’ policy toward the Middle East generally and Israel specifically.

According to Merriam-Webster, apocalypticism is a doctrine concerning an imminent end of the world and an ensuing general resurrection and final judgment. The old “American Heritage Dictionary” I have kept at my desk for dozens of years defines it as a general belief in the imminent destruction of the world.

Christian eschatology (prophetic interpretation concerning the last days) is associated with the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation and the apocalypse have come to have a synonymous meaning. Almost all Christians today believe that the “fulfillment” of the Book of Revelation is in the future, with emphasis on the near future, and the second coming of Christ. Most people, especially Americans, have over the entirety of our nations’ history been saturated with apocalyptic writings mostly based on biblical prophecies with futurist interpretations.

The rise of ISIS/ISIL in the Middle East has only served to increase such conversations. Fundamentalist Christians expecting the rise of an antichrist, the rapture and 1,000 years of Christ rule are looking at the Middle East and wondering whether ISIS and its proclaimed caliphate is it.

An apocalyptic conversation or discussion will draw blood in a few seconds. Somehow, people by nature are attracted to end time apocalypticism. They seem to love tragedy and horror and to be obsessed with predictions of the future.

Most all apocalyptic teaching is presented in biblical language as if it were the direct teaching of the Bible. In fact, there are religious cults that base their entire teaching on apocalypticism. Such false teaching has on numerous occasions prompted people by the hundreds to sell their possessions, don white robes, climb to a mountaintop and await Christ’s coming based on varying interpretations of symbolic Scripture, which sadly ignores a very obvious proclamation in I Thessalonians 5:1-3:Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.” (ESV) In other words, only the Father knows the day and time, and anyone telling you anything else is a false prophet.

Apocalypticism is a type of fatalism that neutralizes human action and resistance to tyranny. It is a syndrome of inevitability which prompts us to think that there is nothing that we can do about anything.

Governments, along with organized religion, have seized upon apocalypticism to promote wars, encourage false patriotism and regiment populations because of the “divine nature” of the crisis.

The American Civil War was considered by both sides as a divine cause, and both sides claimed to have God’s backing. George W. Bush couched the Iraq war in religious terms at an Israeli-Palestinian summit at Sharm el-Sheikh four months after the invasion of Iraq began in 2003. One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said, “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God.’ God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.’ And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Not a week goes by that I don’t get apocalyptic letters, books or other media from Personal Liberty or Bob Livingston Letter readers. Apocalypticism is ingrained so deeply that it is sacrosanct. No one dares question futuristic interpretation of the prophecies. Fundamentalist Christianity is based on it. Any profession of disbelief is tantamount to heresy, as is any notion that the U.S. doesn’t owe blind allegiance to the modern nation of Israel.

Apocalypticism supports and justifies political action and long-range planning. Most professing Christians today believe that the establishment of national Israel in modern history is the continuing fulfillment of prophecy. Whatever the U.S. government does in support of the national goals of Israel is never questioned by the American people because they believe that it is according to “divine will.” This is how organized religion came to support Zionism without suspicion on the part of the people. (Remember what I told you last week, that modern Zionism has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Therefore, criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitism, though Zionists have long used the claim of anti-Semitism to quell all criticism. There are Jews who are not Zionists, and there are Zionists who are not Jews.)

In Genesis 12:1-3, God gave a blessing to Abram (Abraham) saying, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (ESV)

Upon this rests the Christian’s belief that the modern-day physical nation of Israel is somehow special.

God gave Abraham three promises: a great nation, the land of Canaan and through his offspring (seed), all nations would be blessed. But the promise to Abraham and his descendants was conditional on obedience. He made the Israelites (Abraham’s descendants) a great nation, but they forfeited it through their disobedience. God scattered them to winds. He gave them the land of Canaan, but they forfeited it with disobedience (See Nehemiah 1:7-8, Hosea 8). Their lack of obedience to God caused them to lose the land forever, as Christ told them would happen when they rejected him (Matthew 21:33ff) and fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. And the seed promise was fulfilled through Christ (See Isaiah 42:1, 6-7; 43:5-7, 44:1-5; 49:6, Galatians 3, 6:13-16).

So who are Abraham’s offspring and heirs to the promise? It is those who are of Christ — God’s true Israel, not some modern-day Israel nation created by the United Nations by rooting out the area’s occupants in 1948. Nor is it some future apocalyptic physical Israel kingdom of God.

The very first reference to “Israel” in the New Testament is applied to Jesus. It is Jesus who would be the “shepherd of my people Israel” (Matthew 2:6, quoting Micah 5:2). It would be through Jesus on the cross that God would “give help to Israel his servant” (Luke 1:54; see also 1:68-79). Simeon, who was looking for the “consolation of Israel,” would find it in Jesus Christ. Jesus would save the Gentiles and “your people Israel” (Luke 2:25, 32, 34).

There are three main views of Christian eschatology and the book of Revelation: premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism. Post- (after) and pre- (before) refer to the time around a 1,000-year rule that Christ will appear to establish and rule over his earthly kingdom. Amillenialism is the view that God’s kingdom is spiritual, not physical, and that at the end of the church age (which began on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2) Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent reign in a new Heaven and new Earth. (I am a Christian who believes the amillennialism view is the correct one.)

Premillenialism was the commonly held view in the pre-Augustinian church. In the late 1600s, premillennialism gained popularity among the American Puritans. But the 18th century American theologian Jonathan Edwards was a postmillennialist, and his view attracted many followers into the mid-19th century, until it fell from vogue and was replaced among most fundamentalists by premillenialism, which is still the most popular view among Christians today.

Two of those views — premillenialism and postmellenialism — deny or pervert Scripture. God’s kingdom is spiritual, and it is the church. Paul referred to the church as the household of God in I Timothy 3:15. Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16 that the church would be built on the profession of faith, and that he (Peter) would receive the keys to the kingdom. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Neither Peter nor the other disciples are still alive awaiting the kingdom. That prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 2 when the kingdom was established on the Day of Pentecost. If the kingdom has not yet been established, then Christ is a liar.

As for the rise of a single antichrist to battle Christ and persecute Christians, that term is found in only four verses — and none of them is in Revelation. The antichrist or antichrists are those who deny Christ, deny He came in the flesh and deny God, according to I John 2:18-19, I John 2:22-23, I John 4:2-3 and II John 1:7. John writes in I John 2:18 that “many antichrists have arisen.” If there is one antichrist and he is yet to come, then John is a liar.

Neither ISIS/ISIL, nor Russia, nor any other entity that has been or will be named by premillenialists can rise and be the antichrist, as premellenialism proponents claim, and still be Scripturally correct. Antichrists are everywhere because anyone opposing Christ is one.

The point is that most people hold futurist beliefs about the Book of Revelation and about modern physical Israel without ever questioning the source of their beliefs. And if one dares raise questions, he or she is quickly shouted down with charges of anti-Semitism or worse.

Apocolypticism dominates conventional wisdom. Apocolypticism and Zionism dominate American foreign policy, forcing all U.S. presidential hopefuls and most prominent politicians to don a yarmulke and genuflect before Israel’s prime minister and the Jerusalem Wall if they have any desire to be considered relevant on the national political scene.

For most of the past 70 years, America’s foreign policy has been predicated on what is in Israel’s best interests. As Joe Biden said in 2007, “Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?”

It’s high time for that to change and America’s interests put first, before Israel’s, before Saudi Arabia’s and before any other nation’s, but apocalypticism keeps us rooted in the status quo.

Additional sources consulted:


Article edited to clarify Christ’s 1,000-year rule.

The cost of the Iraq war and a lesson in the failure of ‘nation building’

On March 19, 2003, U.S. and coalition military forces began a military bombardment of Iraq to “disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger,” President George W. Bush said in a televised address shortly after the military operation began.

Twelve years later, and the U.S. is now arming Iraq to help it defend itself against ISIS. Its people are becoming enslaved — or worse — by murderous jihadists who were armed, trained, funded and granted a staging point by the U.S., its allies and its foreign policy decisions. And we are told there is still a “grave danger” from terrorists who want to kill us.

One year ago, a study reported on by Reuters put the cost of the Iraq war at $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans. These expenses could top $6 trillion within 40 years.

Beyond the economic cost of the war is the even worse human cost. The Department of Defense claims 4,425 U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war and 31,949 wounded. The war has killed 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqis in total.

After 24 years of war on Iraq (the original Persian Gulf War never really ended, with U.S. troops stationed in the region continuously since and years of overflights by U.S. planes), the Middle East is in greater turmoil than ever. We have in America now a security apparatus that is quashing liberty like never before.

Oh, and those “weapons of mass destruction” that the Bush regime warned us about: Saddam Hussein was a CIA asset and his ties to that agency went as far back as 1959. U.S. State Department documents declassified several years ago showed that former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used his ties to U.S. pharmaceutical firms and helped arrange for millions of dollars in loans to help Saddam buy chemical weapons in the 1980s, and the then-CIA Director William Casey used a Chilean front company to provide Iraq with cluster bombs. Later, the CIA provided intelligence to allow Saddam to use those weapons (including the chemical weapons) on Iranian troops in order to ensure Iraq’s victory over — or at least make sure it didn’t lose to — Iran.

That Iraq possessed chemical weapons was certainly no surprise to the Bush regime, so claims that weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq are specious attempts at making history fit the Bush narrative.

No nuclear weapons were ever found. In fact, U.N. weapons inspectors repeatedly said Iraq had no nuclear weapons program; and former Secretary of State Colin Powell later admitted he knowingly gave false testimony to the U.N. Security Council regarding Iraq’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Iraq remains a failed state rocked with sectarian violence; the U.S. puppet regime failed and was proven corrupt and replaced by another; the Iraqi military that had been trained for years by U.S. troops turned tail and fled in the face of ISIS, leaving billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment and weapons behind; and U.S. troops are gradually being sent back into the region to protect U.S. interests.

If that’s what the regime considers success, I’d hate to see failure.

Internet trolls have a mental disorder

An Internet troll is someone who joins an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it is quickly evident that their sole purpose is to upset everyone. They will lie, exaggerate, defame and vituperate just to create a response and derail a thread.

Some researchers from Canada sought to find out what type of person would do this and why. Their study, published in the September 2014 issue of Personality and Individual Differences, found that cybertrolling was an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

Researchers conducted two online studies of 1,200 people. They gave personality tests to each one and surveyed their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence of what is termed the “Dark Tetrad” of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. What they found was that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said their favorite activity was trolling.

The study authors wrote that the Dark Tetrad scores were off the charts for Internet trolls and “… the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists.”

Of course, this does not apply to all trolls. Some are simply government or nongovernment agency disinformation agents. Intelligence services, corporations, governments and politicians have all been outed as having disinformation trolls roaming Internet sites.

But it’s just as likely the annoying troll on your favorite site is simply mentally ill. When you respond, you’re just feeding his psychopathy.

The best advice is, if you see one, don’t feed him.

H/T: Psychology Today

Why do Americans love war?

Conventional wisdom is based on confusion and disinformation. It has a crowding-out effect in our thought processes that stifles inquiry.

In other words, conventional wisdom programs us to reject any information or thought not in harmony with our preconditioning and experience even if we realize deep down that the idea is not only plausible but possible. This is also called cognitive dissonance.

Conventional wisdom is what everybody knows. It is established by the controlled media — and, sadly, this even includes most private publications and alternative websites — and modern-day “Christianity.”

Human liberty and personal survival in our time must originate in truth, no matter how incredible it seems and how shocking it is to our conditioned minds. Governments control the public mind with disinformation and confusion. No modern government could exist for 24 hours if it told the people the truth.

Personal Liberty is dedicated to the truth no matter how unpopular or unbelievable. Those who study and read with open minds usually eventually come to our conclusions. The problem is that people are at various stages of learning, and they must advance to a point that they can break through the parameters of thought control in America. At some point, we must have a flash that maybe we don’t know what we thought we knew and maybe we have not been getting the truth. Unfortunately, many people run away or close their minds if they sense they are nearing the truth because the truth conflicts with what they “know.”

The trouble is that mind control does not discriminate between the highest intelligence quotient and the simpleton. The Philadelphia lawyer is just as off in his basic information and assumptions as the downtown parking attendant. Neither does education equal intelligence. In fact, the most educated is usually the last to come around. This fact is a monument to the science and power of mass mind control. From the highest to the lowest in America, they don’t know that they are unaware. These are they who are immune and even hostile to probes of inquiry beyond their credibility.

This is never more evident than when discussing American foreign policy in general and America’s relationship with Israel specifically.

America has been involved in a shooting war in the Middle East since Jan. 17, 1991, when the aerial bombardment of Iraq began in order to drive Saddam Hussein’s army out of Kuwait. An entire generation of Americans has become adults without ever seeing or knowing of a time when their country was at peace. And there is diminishing hope they will ever see peace in their lifetime.

Americans have not only come to accept war, they’ve come to love it. Christians, it seems, particularly love it. I shudder when I see comments from some who no doubt would consider themselves Christians advocating total war up to and including nuclear strikes on Middle East or African nations simply because:

  1. They are allegedly attempting to acquire technology to create a nuclear weapon (Iran) in order to bring themselves on par with their “enemies” (Israel and the U.S.);
  2. A few tens of thousands of Islamist bad actors (who were funded and mostly trained and equipped by the CIA, the Mossad and a number of U.S.-allied Arab nations) are engaging in an Islamic sectarian war that has gone on for more than 1,000 years;
  3. Or they are aligned with Russia and Iran (Syria), and our leaders tell us they are inherently evil.

There is little or no consideration given to the fact that the United States’ actions to destabilize Libya gave the Islamic State a launching pad. Nor is any consideration being given by the American people to the fate of the millions of innocents — average citizens, including women and children, who have no say in what their governments do; and if they do have a say, they are likely subjected to even more propaganda and mind control than even Americans are — residing in those countries or of the long-term consequences of the destabilization of established regimes. Those deaths are just chalked up to collateral damage and dismissed out of hand.

Americans rightly became angered and disgusted by stories of atrocities committed against Christians and Muslims by the Islamic State as reported in the mainstream media — the beheadings and mass executions — yet gave little or no pause to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Libya by NATO bombers and U.S. drones and the hundreds of thousands who have died there since that nation was destabilized. And the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by U.S. bombers in 20 years of attacks and two wars on that country have all but been ignored and glossed over.

There is also an astonishing lack of consideration by Americans for the fate of the American fighting men and women who would be sent to fight the wars against the Islamic State, Syria and/or Iran. We currently have untold thousands of maimed — both physically and mentally — American military members and veterans (and their families) attempting to cope with the scars they received fighting during two decades of unnecessary wars on behalf of the banksters and the military-industrial complex. And thousands more are dead.

And there is still less consideration given to the economic cost of the war that has been paid for by money printing on a scale never before conceived.

But after all those years of war and those injuries and deaths, the region is less stable than it was before; and the regime claims we’re less safe from terrorism than ever before. How will more wars not result in more of the same? What evidence is there that continuing the strategies of the last four presidents to attack other countries will end Islamist sectarian conflicts or reduce the chances of terror attacks on American interests or American soil? Those questions are not considered in the rush to war.

In his column last week, John Myers asked much the same question as he analyzed the remarks made by Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress. Myers’ central premise was to question whether we should go to war with Iran simply because it was in Israel’s best interest and based on Netanyahu’s proclaimed fears of another holocaust or whether we should first ensure a war with Iran — as being advocated for by the neocons — is in America’s best interest.

One would think that was a legitimate question. But it is apparently not, according to conventional wisdom and a number of commenters, for that question immediately drew the expected and mindless knee-jerk charges of anti-Semitism and dozens of promises to drop Personal Liberty from their reading list.

Using inflammatory code words like anti-Semitism, isolationist, racist, homophobe, conspiracy theorist, etc. to shut down debate and the spread of ideas is a common tactic used by those trapped in conventional wisdom because it gives them an excuse to avoid considering whether a concept may be true. It is a protection mechanism for them and for the establishment. Another protection mechanism is to run away from those ideas to prevent future exposure to them.

The U.S. government has as much a slavish devotion to Zionism as it does to war. And its propaganda machine, aided by the teaching of fundamentalist Christian preachers, has created a slavish devotion to it among the people. U.S. imperialism, the corporatocracy and Zionism dominate the U.S. foreign policy decisions of the past 50-plus years, hence the wars of the past quarter century.

But modern Zionism has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Therefore, criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitism, though Zionists have long used the claim of anti-Semitism to quell all criticism. There are Jews who are not Zionists, and there are Zionists who are not Jews.

In an interview in 2007, Joe Biden, a Catholic, claimed to be a Zionist. During the interview with the Jewish Shalom TV, Biden said, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

He presented himself as a great friend to Israel and referred to it as the United States’ greatest Middle East ally. Then he followed that with one of the most important questions he’s likely ever asked: “Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?”

Imagine indeed.

In a column last week on Mondoweiss, Lillian Rosengarten pointed out: “The Israeli Zionist ministry of propaganda has successfully blurred the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. With clever adeptness and manipulation they have succeeded in spreading a form of domestic terror to Europe and the United States. This form of terrorism as defined by the Thesaurus is ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to civilians in order to attain goals that are religious or political or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.’ Use of the Holocaust as propaganda invites fear and hysteria.”

But Netanyahu need not have even played the “Holocaust” card because just questioning whether America should put its interests first makes the neocon right and fundamentalist Christians lose their minds. The neocon American right, fundamentalist Christians and most politicians have become Israel-firsters because of Zionism, propaganda and false teaching.

There are different reasons for blind support of Zionism among the people and the politicians. For the politicians, it mostly boils down to money and their devotion to the new world order. For many of the people, it comes down to a misunderstanding of or a misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

I will write more on that next week.

In the meantime, please hold off on calling me, or any of Personal Liberty’s columnists, anti-Semites. Neither I nor they harbor a grudge or hold any animus against Israel or its people or Jews wherever they may be.

I do take issue with the decisions of some of Israel’s leaders, its agencies and its foreign policy, just like I do with America’s leaders, its agencies and foreign policy. But criticizing Israel’s leaders or foreign policy is not anti-Semitic any more than criticizing U.S. foreign policy or its leaders is un-American.

I love my nation, but I fear what my government has become and where it wants to take us. My efforts are devoted to helping us all break the bonds of conventional wisdom and find the truth… no matter how uncomfortable.

Ammo ban proposal built on straw man logic and outright lies

The Obama regime has mastered the art of sleight of hand like no other before it. It builds up straw men and takes actions that it knows are controversial and unconstitutional in order to create crisis after crisis to cover its ongoing criminality and distract and divide the American people.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ move to ban popular 5.56 M855 and SS109 “green-tip” ammo (along with the .30-06 M2AP “black-tip” round) is just the latest example of Obama’s use of rogue government agencies and sleight of hand to divide and conquer.

Progressives in and out of government have long sought to ban weapons of all types, but they have particularly targeted black AR-style carbines because they find them exceptionally frightening and Americans find them exceptionally fun to shoot. White House spokesman Josh Earnest spilled the beans — whether intentionally or not, only he knows — when he wouldn’t deny that the proposed ban fell under Obama’s stated goal of using “executive action” to make what he has termed “common-sense” gun laws he can’t get through Congress.

“The president has long believed there are some common-sense steps that we can take to… ensure we’re protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans while also taking some common-sense steps to prevent people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them. In this case, we’re talking about an ATF proposal that’s being considered through its standard process and it’s open now for public comment,” Earnest said at a daily briefing last week about the proposed ban, according to The Hill.

“It would be fair to say that we are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone,” he said. “This seems to be an area where everyone should agree: that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

Notice the phrase, “taking some common-sense steps to prevent people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them,” which proves the move is not about banning ammunition, but about banning a weapon by removing its ammo from store shelves. And if it can ban 5.56 (.223) ammo under the notion that is “armor-piercing,” then it can ban heavier rounds like the .30-06, .30-30 and .308 rounds used by hunters because they can also penetrate body armor — and can do so much more efficiently than the 5.56.

The idea that the ban is needed to protect law enforcement and that the AR pistol is concealable is the ultimate in fallacious, straw man logic and a lie on its face. No law enforcement officer in U.S. history has been killed by a 5.56 green tip round fired from an AR-15 pistol. Furthermore, the AR-15 pistol is a pistol in name only. What makes it classify as a pistol is its shorter barrel and lack of a shoulder stock. It’s not the first choice of weapon for a criminal because it is expensive and is definitely not concealable, as this video shows.

Late Friday, the ATF began to walk back its ban by claiming “a publishing error” was responsible for the ammunition’s being left off the newly published exemption list and promising it would be included in an updated version. This was just more sleight of hand, as the ATF was continuing to take comments on the proposal to ban the ammunition.

After intense backlash from gun owners, majorities in both the House and Senate, legislation to disband the ATF, and lobbying by the NRA and Gun Owners of America and members of those organizations, the ATF claims it is rescinding its ban but “plans more study on the proposed AP Ammo exemption framework.” That’s code for, “We’ll wait until you’re not looking.”

Government statists are masters at using gradualism to achieve their goals. Banning ammunition is a long-term strategy to disarm the American people without actually taking away guns.

Besides, the resulting furor over the potential ban just adds another front from which the administration attacks our liberty.

What your doctor told you about salt is probably wrong

It is conventional wisdom in allopathic medicine that reducing salt intake is essential for heart health. The doctor crowd, especially heart doctors, have literally scared the American people away from salt.

But studies are increasingly showing that low-salt diets are not only ineffective in affecting heart health, but are actually hazardous to our overall health.

A 2014 Cochrane study showed that “there is insufficient power to confirm clinically important effects of dietary advice and salt substitution on cardiovascular mortality in normotensive or hypertensive populations.”

In 2011, a health study reported in Journal of American Medical Association found that those who ate less salt were the most likely to die from heart disease — five times more likely, in fact, than those with the highest salt intake.

A study published in the journal AMJ Hypertens found that “[r]estricting sodium (salt) intake causes insulin resistance (which leads to diabetes and heart disease). Restricting salt can promote diabetes and heart disease.

“In fact, research studies have routinely found that sodium significantly improves insulin function. According to one study, ‘an abundant sodium intake may improve glucose tolerance and insulin resistance, especially in diabetic salt-sensitive, and/or medicated essential hypertensive subjects.’”

According to Dr. W.C. Douglas, a low-salt diet is deadly. He reported in his May 27, 2011 newsletter “Daily Dose” that “one study found that seniors with the lowest salt consumption had the highest risk of bone breaks and early death.”

In the book “Salt Your Way to Health,” David Brownstein, M.D., states: “Researchers studied the relationship between a low sodium diet and cardiovascular mortality. Nearly 3,000 hypertensive subjects were studied. The result of this study was that there was a 430% increase in myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the group with the lowest salt intake versus the group with the highest intake.”

Why? He says that low-sodium diets predispose one to having a heart attack because of multiple nutrient deficiencies of minerals, potassium and B vitamins.

We now have some more data on salt’s actual benefits. A study in the March 3 issue of Cell Metabolism shows that dietary salt helps the body defend against microbes. In other words, it helps with immunity.

The study showed that “[a] high-salt diet increased sodium accumulation in the skin of mice, thereby boosting their immune response to a skin-infecting parasite. The findings suggest that dietary salt could have therapeutic potential to promote host defense against microbial infections.”

The study came about after researchers found that patients with bacterial skin infections showed a high accumulation of salt in the infected areas. In their subsequent experiments, researchers found that mice fed a high-salt diet showed an increase in the activity of their immune cells called macrophages. This increase promoted healing in the mice that had had their feet infected with a protozoan parasite called Leishmania major.

The researchers concluded: “We also think that local application of high-salt-containing wound dressings and the development of other salt-boosting antimicrobial therapies might bear therapeutic potential.”

We do not use or recommend refined salt from the grocery store. We use sea salt, which contains 17 minerals.

Unrefined natural sea salt is different from common table salt, which is chemically treated and stripped of minerals such as calcium, magnesium and potassium.

Not only does natural sea salt add flavor to your favorite foods, but it can also help with many different health conditions. According to the book “Water & Salt, The Essence of Life” by Barbara Hendel, sea salt has been shown to:

  • Help reduce the acidity of your tissues.
  • Help stabilize irregular heartbeats.
  • Balance blood sugar levels.
  • Revitalize nerve cell communication with your brain.
  • Help with the absorption process in your intestinal tract.
  • Prevent muscle cramps.

When shopping for sea salt, be sure that it has not been refined or boiled to produce the crystals. The sea salt should be harvested and allowed to dry by evaporation in order to be labeled “natural.”

The IRS and the propaganda that perpetuates it

It is tax season, and everybody feels the compulsion to conform to ensure they have paid their “fair share” to Uncle Scam.

Of course that is a ruse, and that’s why I call him Uncle Scam. The income tax is not collected to fund the operation of the government. It is not needed to fund the operation of a government that can print money to infinity. The income tax is nothing more than a regulatory system and an information collection system.

I am not the first or only one to ever say this, but few understand it. As far as I can tell, information that the income tax is not necessary to fund government was first uttered publicly by a government functionary during the last year of World War II. Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1941-1946, said in a speech before the American Bar Association, “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.”

You may ask how this is so. Well ask yourself this question: If you had a printing press and could print money as much and as often as you like, would you ever have to work again? The government has such a printing press.

So why is there an income tax? It is to regulate consumption, control behavior, control and redistribute wealth, and compile dossiers on all citizens. The Form 1040 is the “taxpayer’s” dossier.

In a system as the whole world lives under today — where central banks create “money” (bank credit) at will — consumption of the people must be strictly regulated. Government consumption competes with the consumption of the people. If consumption is not regulated, “money” becomes worthless and the fraud of the financial system is then revealed. Money must be regulated out of circulation in order to prop up its value and maintain the system.

The concept of regulation is the key to understanding government finance. This is not taught in the public or private school systems. It is not taught at any university or college teaching mainstream economics. It is only taught in the few places that teach Austrian economics.

The reason is that you are not supposed to know that government creates its own money and uses it to steal the wealth of the American people and the people of the world. And although they benefit greatly from this spoils system, not one accountant, CPA or tax lawyer in 10,000 even comes close to suspecting what I am stating.

The monetary system of the United States and its income tax system have to do with the transfer of real resources from the people to the government, banksters and corporate state without payment.

People tell me that the subject of money and finance is a dull and monotonous study. Is it? When you look upon the millions of graves of American soldiers, as well as those around the world both Jewish and Christian, you are looking at the real Holocaust of American democracy created with bank credit and propaganda. Not one Christian preacher or Jewish rabbi has said one word to reveal this racial genocide to their people. The guilt of the “Holocaust” is upon their heads. Their purpose has been to confuse cause and effect in the minds of the people. They have succeeded.

Simply put, the power of propaganda to distort and control the mass mind is more powerful than all the armies and military technology of history combined.

The “income tax” as it is called is both immoral and illegal. The IRS was formed in 1913 following the adoption (it was never properly ratified) of the 16th Amendment. It is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people. Now no one questions it. They just grouse about it every spring.

The income tax was enacted even though the U.S. Supreme Court had only recently ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. that certain taxes on direct income were unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes and violated Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Not covered in Pollock is the fact that the income tax also violates the 5th Amendment: No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax is the second plank of the Communist Manifesto. The central bank (aka the Federal Reserve) is the fifth plank. The United States has essentially adopted all 10 planks of Marxism. For its part, the Federal Reserve was formed during a wave of bipartisan progressive legislation passed during the early 1900s that transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism, as Murray Rothbard writes in “A History of Money and Banking in the United States.” The Fed was also fraudulently promoted, as those who were working behind the scenes to pass the legislation were acting in public as if they opposed it.

The U.S. government had functioned without an income tax for more than 100 years, except during the time of the War of Northern Aggression, when Abraham Lincoln passed an unconstitutional tax on income to fund his war machine.

During the run-up to the 16th Amendment, President Woodrow Wilson promised Americans that only those earning more than $10,000 (about $100,000 in today’s dollars) per year would even pay taxes and the tax rate would never exceed 3 percent (now 36.9 percent). In the beginning, that was so; but within four years families were taxed on all income above $1,000 and the top rate had risen to 76 percent, demonstrating how the elected class lies without compunction.

The government began tax withholding in 1943. By withholding a portion of a worker’s paycheck, government is able steal the wealth of its citizens slowly over the course of a year, silently and with little outrage. This is vile treachery, even if the worker receives his money back when he files his “income taxes.” It means that for a year the government has had an interest-free loan on the backs of the citizenry. When the government returns that money, it is viewed as a benevolent master by ignorant citizens who assume the government is giving them some kind of gift, never realizing how poorly they have been used.

The income tax involves a confession of judgment with the threat of incarceration and penalties if one does not confess, i.e., sign the 1040 form. This act of incrimination is presented in supreme hypocrisy as a “voluntary” act. Can you imagine how many millions of Americans self-incriminate in a blanket confession on an IRS 1040 form? Even in a criminal proceeding a defendant is not required to testify against himself. In fact, he is not even compelled to speak at all, nor confess in any form.

After you have confessed judgment under duress, the IRS then takes the information that you supply and uses it to incriminate you. This, my friends, is exactly the system used by Nazi Germany that Americans have been taught to hate. What chicanery! What deception.

Do you now believe in the power of propaganda? Would you believe it if you knew for sure that the income tax system has nothing at all to do with collecting money to support government operations? I remind you again that the power and propaganda of Nazi Germany came out of bank credit. This is not in the history books. It was not mentioned in the world showcased Nuremberg Trials. The issue was never raised because it would have revealed that the United States was a de facto wartime ally of Nazi Germany in that they used military and psychological warfare against each other and equally against their own respective people.

What did the war and the Nuremberg Trials accomplish except to conceal genocide against the Anglo-Saxon Germanic race?

The Bundesbank today is an identical bank credit machine as was the Reichebank of Hitler Germany. The Reichebank did not change its name to Bundesbank until 1948, two years after the Nuremberg Trials. After millions of dead Jews and Christians, nothing has changed but the names. God help us!

At the Nuremberg Trials, not one German Reichebank official was tried, yet the military colossus of Nazi Germany could not have been possible without bank credit (money) created by the Reichebank. Is the world deceived into fixation on the “Holocaust” to cover the bank credit crime as the origin of all modern wars?

The military men tried at Nuremberg were pawns and decoys of this master deception. Quite possibly, not one of them had any awareness that they were pawns of international bank credit. This is equally true of allied military people, as well as the judges themselves at the trial.

The currency you use to acquire things you need is not money. Federal Reserve Notes are not notes. They are not dollars, and they do not satisfy the definition of money. So what are they? They are commercial paper.

The dollar is a myth. Oh, I know that we have green strips of paper in our pockets that we believe are dollars. The numbers on the green strips of paper are our “dollars.” So what we “spend” every day are the numbers or the symbols on our green strips of paper or in our checking accounts.

Now to set this illusion in concrete, the IRS does reduce the numbers (money) in our checking accounts when we authorize it to do so via our Form 1040 tax return. But no one ever asks where the numbers (money) go when deleted from our checking accounts. These numbers (money) do not go to Washington as taxes to pay anything. They go into the cyberspace of the IRS computers.

The tax system is a masterpiece of deception and trickery.

Love and hate

(I began publishing my monthly newsletter The Bob Livingston Letter™ in 1969. The following is an excerpt from the March 1998 issue in which I warned readers about the nation’s slide toward immorality and wickedness and the responsibility Christians have to recognize evil and condemn it for what it is, or face the consequences.)

Many times, Mrs. Livingston and I have discussed love and hate.

We think that the masses of professing Christians think that they are supposed to love their enemies, even love God’s enemies. This love-love teaching is not a Biblical doctrine. It is an esoteric teaching designed to neutralize Christians so that they do not and cannot discriminate between good and evil. Need we explain that once we are neutralized with the love-love syndrome, then evil takes over.

There is no neutral doctrine in the scripture. Either we love or hate. Either God loves or hates.

The evil system that we live under euphemistically called democracy literally exists and survives because millions of professing Christians do not know the difference in good and evil. God cannot be pleased and we are therefore deceived and ruled with deception. We must as Christians love the good and hate the evil and we must know the difference. Then and only then can we reclaim our America and purge the evil politicians.

Indeed God has perfect love as well as perfect hate.

“No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other.” Luke 16:13, Mat 6:24.

“Thou has loved righteousness and hated iniquity.” Heb 1:9.

God said even before they were born, “Jacob have I loved, but Essau have I hated.” Rom 9:13.

“So then because thou art luke warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.” Rev 3:16.

America will continue down the path of immorality and wickedness so long as professing Christians refuse to condemn evil.

The very reason that you have difficulty talking to your neighbor is that he/she does not know good from evil. They are victims of the immorality of democracy.

Let us “follow not that which is evil, but that which is good.” 3 John, ver 11.

Some antibiotics shown to have negative long-term health effects

It is agonizing for parents to see their children sick and natural to want to turn to the latest drug to get them well. If your child develops an earache, you run to the pediatrician for an antibiotic, right? But not so fast; that quick “cure” may have long-term consequences.

Research out of British Columbia found that receiving antibiotics early in life can increase susceptibility to specific diseases later in life. That’s because antibiotics don’t discern which bacteria to kill and they wipe out the body’s good bacteria with the same abandon as the bad.

Good bacteria in the gut play a positive role in promoting a healthy immune system. But a study published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that the antibiotic streptomycin wiped out the good bacteria which in turn increased susceptibility to a disease known as hypersensitivity pneumonitis later in life. The antibiotic vancomycin was not shown to be related to an increase in hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is an allergic disease found in people with occupations like farming, sausage-making and cleaning hot tubs.

Streptomycin is used for treating tuberculosis and some bacterial infections. On, streptomycin is said to possibly cause nerve reactions for patients with kidney problems along with a host of other side effects. But it is long-term damage that may be the worst.

The problem is, physicians are writing an increasing number of antibiotic prescriptions. A study by a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins found that competition among doctor’s offices, urgent care centers and retail medical clinics may be behind the surge.

The study, published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, found that “[B]oth the number of physicians per capita and the number of clinics are significant drivers of antibiotic prescription rate… The increase in the number of antibiotic prescriptions written in wealthy areas appears to be driven primarily by increased competition among doctors’ offices, retail medical clinics and other health care providers as they seek to keep patients satisfied with medical care and customer service.”

This is especially true in wealthier areas where patients are able to shop around for care that offers them what they want – a quick fix — rather than what may be in their long-term best interests.

It’s true that much of strong immunity is found in the gut. The key is to build up your immunity before you get sick by consuming key nutrients, a healthy diet and taking probiotics. But probiotics are especially important if you are on antibiotics.



The fascist state of America

There comes a time in the course of human events that it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with another. America is fast hurtling toward that time.

The United States was founded on the republican principles of federalism (states’ rights) and representative government. Today’s government is “constitutional” in name only.

The undocumented usurper currently despoiling the peoples’ house has for six years shown utter disdain for the founding document. In a town hall meeting on Wednesday last, Barack Obama bragged that he has expanded his authorities “under executive action and prosecutorial discretion.”

But Article II of the Constitution lays out the chief executive’s authorities quite explicitly. There is no room for “expanding” them within the scope of the Constitution. The President is neither tasked with nor authorized to write law or change it. That falls solely under the scope of Congress, as outlined in Article I, Section 1. The executive’s role under Article II, Section 3 is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

But Congress has ceded its authority as the lawmaking body to the imperial president and the myriad alphabet soup agencies of government. Now we have the IRS, the FCC, the EPA, HHS, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the FDA, the USDA, etc., writing and enforcing laws under the guise of “regulatory authority.” The result is a contemptible abuse of the people by agents of the federal government, rising taxes and fees, closed businesses, stifled innovation, and depressed economic growth.

When some in Congress do take the tepid step of attempting to regain some of its authority, the bureaucrats show their disdain and contempt of that “august body” by refusing to testify when called on or by refusing to provide requested documents outlining their regulatory agenda or demonstrating the depths of their criminality (see Tom Wheeler, Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, etc.).

An activist judiciary is likewise writing law, overturning the will of the people as demonstrated by their votes on state issues and granting by fiat special rights and privileges to one group at the expense of the rights of the others. This is another place where Congress has ceded its authority.

Should it choose to, Congress has the power under Article III, Section 2 to regulate the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. In other words, Congress can pass a law prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on such issues as state-passed referenda on gay marriage, abortion, legalization of pot or anything it chooses.

Of course, few in Congress when considering doing a thing stop to consider whether they are authorized to do it. Fewer still in government consider the Constitution at all. That’s because politics and government attract psychopaths, liars and thieves. It attracts people who are parasitic in nature, greedy and without conscience. In short, these are people who have the born mentality to live off of other people.

They are selfish and attracted to money and power. Therefore, they are easily swayed and even bought by the corporatists and banksters; and their every act is to increase their and their agency’s power and sphere of influence.

The masses of people have been propagandized by the state-controlled media and the public (non)education system into believing that government is designed and tasked with looking out for the best interests of the people. But nothing could be further from the truth. They have little knowledge of the Constitution and little concept of limited government, and they believe government can and should be all things to all people… particularly if a check to them from the federal Treasury is involved.

The so-called regulatory agencies of government are typically staffed at the top by crony capitalists and lobbyists for the industries they supposedly regulate. As such, they write rules and regulations that benefit preferred large multinational corporations and government at the expense of the people. I have documented this so many times here that it is now self-evident to all but the most sycophantic worshipers of government. However, given its relevance considering the passage last Thursday of misnamed “net neutrality” regulations by the FCC, I give you for evidence the agency’s chairman, Tom Wheeler, former president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, which are lobbying organizations for the cable and telecommunications industries. He was also an executive for a venture capital firm that invested in technology firms.

As Benito Mussolini stated, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” and “The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.” That exactly explains what our former constitutional republic has become. It is benevolent totalitarianism, tyranny under the guise of democracy. But the truth is democracy = socialism = fascism = communism. They are one in the same.

Mussolini also said of his fascism, “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty,” and that is likewise the goal of the American fascist politician and federal bureaucrat. Liberty necessarily perishes under collectivism, egalitarianism and government altruism.

Now we have in America laws that allow for the indefinite imprisonment without trial of those the state deems “terrorists,” without that term being defined. We have an American president who has assumed the authority to kill Americans with drones without due process. We have federal authorities and state and local police abusing citizens with impunity, shooting unarmed and complying citizens down like rabid dogs. And we even have evidence of local police using CIA- or Gestapo-like “black sites” to hold and interrogate Americans without charges or due process.

America is a prison nation, with more citizens incarcerated than the most vile and oppressive government you might care to name.

It bears little resemblance to the free and prosperous nation envisioned as the 18th century turned into the 19th, or even as the 19th turned into the 20th.

In his book, “The Political Crisis of the 1850s,” Michael Holt describes how Americans, particularly Southern Americans, had lost all confidence in the current political system because the existing parties did not represent the people but instead represented the agricultural aristocracy and big business and the banksters. There was also an influx of aliens (mostly Irish Catholics and Germans) who Americans believed did not understand or appreciate America’s “values.” The political parties agitated the people over these immigrants, creating a constant state of strife in addition to the already existing acrimony over the slavery issue, the addition of states to the union and tariffs.

America’s current political system is very similar. Regardless of which “party” holds power, government grows more oppressive and steals more wealth from its people. It creates one crisis after the other, keeping the people agitated against each other so they cannot focus on the real culprit behind their lost liberties: fascist government.

Elite politicians and most white progressives hold most Americans in great disdain. To them, conservatives are racist hicks and trailer trash clinging to their guns and religion — backward and ignorant and “anti” progressive. Or, in their minds, regressive. To the elite politicians and most white progressives, blacks are incapable of providing for themselves or are simply another minority group ripe for continued exploitation. It is slavery under another name.

Elite politicians and most white progressives would like nothing more than to see those in “flyover country” left to their own devices. Yet talk of separation is deemed seditious, unpatriotic or unAmerican; and those who mention secession are considered more dangerous than ISIS, or IS or ISIL by the current regime. Just belonging to a group discussing secession now gets you raided by the FBI and fingerprinted and your personal communication devices confiscated.

This is freedom in America.

The Constitution was ratified to create a government “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Can anyone honestly say American government does these things today?

What ‘net neutrality’ reveals about U.S. government

The days of the U.S. as a constitutional, representative government have long passed. Unelected and unaccountable porn-obsessed bureaucrats and paper pushers, mostly nameless and faceless to Americans, run America for the benefit of the multinational corporations and the banksters.

On Wednesday, the head of the Federal Communications Commission, an Orwellian bureaucracy that long ago outlived any usefulness it may have once held, refused to testify before Congress to describe the still-secret particulars of the agency’s plan to regulate the Internet. What’s this: The head of an agency established by Congress refused to testify before Congress? An agency tasked with looking out for the interests of the people refuses to divulge plans that if passed will affect the way every American receives information? This is what passes for representative government.

House Weeper John Boehner quickly took to his Facebook feed to boldly proclaim, “An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship.

“Federal bureaucrats should NOT be in the business of regulating the Internet. Not now. Not ever.”

He then promptly surrendered, proving yet again he’s all hat and no cattle. Senior Republicans had already conceded they were powerless to halt the agency it created 70-some years ago — just like it’s powerless to halt executive amnesty and executive gun regulations and every other thing it’s empowered by the Constitution to do but which it regularly cedes the power over to an imperial president and the bureaucratic regime.

Put in simplest terms, the changes will allow the FCC to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting new standards that require the provision of equal access to all online content. Of course, like all legislation passed in the past century, the real and ultimate goal of the legislation is a far cry from what you’re told it is and opposite of what its name implies.

Other places have written how government regulation of the Internet will create monopolies, stifle innovation and competition, restrict content and speech, and grant government even more power over what you see, hear and say. This is not that discussion.

That’s because the most revealing tell in all of this is the further evidence that Congress is a feckless, vapid and odious collection of soulless fascists whose sole purpose is to suck off the public teat for as long as possible before riding off to a further appointment in government or as a lobbyist. It does not in any way represent the people that elect it.

His justice cannot sleep forever

There is a great deception that rights come from government. The masses are falling for this deception and are, therefore, surrendering their liberties for something grander — seemingly better. But how can there be anything better than total liberty?

That “something better” they seek masquerades as freedom, but when unmasked is simply collectivism — also known as international socialism, global democracy and the New World Order. In recent times, it has also been known as Marxism, Fabianism, the New Deal, Nazism and communism. In ancient times, when the religious basis of political manipulation was more fully acknowledged, it was known as Orientalism, Babylonianism and Baalism.

All of these “isms” have in common an effort by government to maximize its power by forcibly leveling every human individual to the same status of conformity, egalitarianism and serfdom. But governments have no rights except those granted it by the people; and they, therefore, cannot grant what they do not possess. However, when the masses come to accept that government grants them their rights, the next step is that they accept that government can take away the rights of the one in order to bring him down to the level of the other under some misguided idea of altruism.

But our rights come from God, not government. And as such, they cannot be taken away unless and until man is deceived into giving them up, as Thomas Jefferson stated in his Notes on the State of Virginia.

He said, “[C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . .”

It is for this reason the godless state and its statist propagandists are working so hard to remove God from the public discourse. And it is for this reason the Christian cannot succumb to the bullying tactics of those who would deny Him and see Him swept from the public sphere.

Cholesterol and low-fat madness

The U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is poised to reverse 40 years of “advice” to Americans and scrap longstanding guidelines about avoiding high-cholesterol food. In a draft report, cholesterol as found in foods like egg yolks is no longer listed as a “nutrient of concern.”

The cholesterol bogy has been used for several decades to terrify a whole population. For many years, cholesterol levels were considered the ultimate measure of health and fitness in America.

Suppressing cholesterol is not about health. It’s about making money, and the people who created the cholesterol myth did so to make trillions of dollars — and they are doing it.

I have been telling my readers for many years that high cholesterol and a bad ratio of HDL and LDL is not in itself bad health. It is only a marker of a health problem. Suppressing cholesterol is like placing something over your car’s heat indicator light expecting to prevent the car from overheating. This is pitiful nonsense, but you know literally millions of people along with their doctors are thoroughly indoctrinated with this myth. People are actually paying $600 dollars a month for statin drugs (to lower cholesterol) that are offending their health far more than elevated cholesterol. I feel sure that a lot of old folks are using their grocery money to buy these drugs.

Elevated cholesterol and a bad ratio of HDL and LDL is an indicator of an insulin problem. High levels of insulin continuously stimulate production of cholesterol. The anti-fat phobia is directly linked in the medical literature and in the public mind to the cholesterol nonsense.

Once and for all, fat does not make fat. It does not raise cholesterol or triglycerides and fat consumption does not put on body fat. In fact, fat consumption takes off body fat inside and outside. And what’s shocking, you have to eat fat to lose fat.

Eskimos live on fat — an enormous amount — and they have almost no heart disease, diabetes or obesity. But their fat is omega-3 fat, not omega-6. Why does all the pretended research against fat fail to mention this?

Carbohydrates, processed sugars and chemical-laden processed foods are what stimulate body fat storage — and sales of cholesterol drugs. And the caution from government panels and their propagandists against cholesterol drove many people to consume foods high in sugar and carbohydrates.

As a result, noted Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the famed Cleveland Clinic, Americans have gotten fatter and fatter, and more Americans than ever are becoming diabetic.

Carbohydrates stimulate large quantities of insulin, which directly stimulates radical rises in cholesterol. Even though carbohydrates themselves are fat-free, excess carbohydrates end up as excess fat. So the insulin that’s stimulated by excess carbohydrates aggressively promotes the accumulation of body fat.

What’s the matter with these people who are advising high-carbohydrate diets? It gets worse. Not only does increased carbohydrate-produced insulin tell your body to store carbohydrates as fat, it also tells it not to release any stored fat. And this makes it impossible for you to use your own stored body fat for energy. So the excess carbohydrates in your diet not only produce excess insulin that makes you fat, they make sure you stay fat. This is how lethal excess carbohydrates are.

The medical people who are trying to force your cholesterol down to zero forgot to tell you that as your cholesterol level falls to a certain point, you jump from the frying pan of heart disease risk into the fire of death by all sorts of other diseases.

What kind of diseases? Cerebral hemorrhage, gall bladder disease and many types of cancer; falling cholesterol is a marker for several types of cancer. Cholesterol need not be lower than 180 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl range.

Really concerned about your cholesterol? Learn about an insulin-controlling diet that will get your weight to normal and rid yourself of a multitude of health problems, including heart trouble. Save and invest the $600 that you are spending monthly to keep up the pharmaceuticals. I promise and guarantee you positive results beyond anything you can imagine.

It’s not a “diet” as much as it’s a lifestyle change. It starts with fresh, whole foods — primarily raw — and only free-range, non-chemical-laden meats. The Nutritarian Diet is one such option.

Heart trouble? Find a provider for a non-surgical procedure

Dear Bob,

Do you have a way of finding a doctor who uses the Enhanced External Counter-Pulsation treatments in our area? Perhaps within a 30-60 mile radius of Goshen, IN. 

My cardiologists are saying I need bypass surgery as soon as possible.   

Thanks for all your good work!

Cal K., retired pastor

Dear Cal,

Enhanced External Counter-Pulsation (EECP) is a non-surgical procedure that can help certain heart patients who are not considered candidates for angioplasty or bypass surgery. Some patients with congestive heart failure have seen good results from the procedure, which is believed to help stimulate the growth of new blood vessels and improve the blood flow in existing vessels. It is also sometimes used in conjunction with heart bypass and angioplasty to improve the benefits of these procedures. The best source I’m aware of for locating a facility near you that will perform the procedure is this one provided by the International EECP Therapists Association. Go here to search for a provider by ZIP code. The national or your local office of the American Heart Association may also be able to provide you with information.

Best wishes,


Tyranny and America’s moral decline

Whenever government establishes special “rights” or “privileges” for a perceived aggrieved class (also called a minority class), it does so at the expense of the rights of others. It inevitably leads to law, logic and reason being tied into undecipherable knots, contributes to the power and collectivism of government, and is anathema to human liberty.

Take, for instance, the recent case of Baronelle Stutzman, the 70-year-old Washington state florist who declined to provide flowers for the “wedding” of two men because, as a Christian, she held a fundamental belief that a wedding is to be a union of a man and woman, as God established in Genesis 2:24 and His son Jesus affirmed in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:8.

One of the “aggrieved” parties, Robert Ingersoll, had been a customer of Stutzman’s for more than a decade, indicating she held no animus toward homosexuals. In fact, when she turned down Ingersoll’s request for a floral arrangement for the wedding, she referred him to other florists.

The two men received the flowers they wanted, and after the case became news they even received offers of free flowers from others. In other words, they suffered no harm. Their “rights” to purchase flowers or be “married” were not violated by Stutzman. The free market, as it is wont to do, stepped in and provided a solution.

But Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom decided that Ingersoll’s “rights” to be served by a business trumped Stutzman’s rights to set the rules of her supposed voluntary transactions and abide by her faith. Somehow, the action of her engaging in commerce stripped her of her right to exercise her faith. She took no action that harmed anyone. She simply took no action.

Ekstrom ruled that the 1st Amendment protects Stutzman’s religious faith, but not actions stemming from those beliefs that conflict with state anti-discrimination laws. But such a “protection” is no protection at all. It is also a violation of Washington’s Religious Freedom law. It’s also a violation of Stutzman’s natural rights by forcing her to engage in a transaction against her wishes.

According to the Section 11 of the state’s Constitution, “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion…” Yet Stutzman has been quite “molested” and “disturbed in person or property.”

The state and the gay couple are now free to sue Stutzman for up to $2,000 per violation and collect legal fees as well, a prospect that may well put her out of business and place her home and savings at risk, according to her attorneys.

In other words, the state’s anti-discrimination laws trump the state’s Constitution — that provides Stutzman a guarantee of freedom of conscious in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship — and it also somehow trumps the 1st Amendment, which became incorporated to the states by an activist judiciary beginning in the 1920s (an explanation of which can be found here).

Twenty-five hundred miles to the east southeast in Mobile, Alabama, federal Judge Callie V.S. “Ginny” Granade recently struck down an Alabama Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage as unconstitutional, opening the door for gays to wed despite the fact that 81 percent of Alabamians voted in favor of the amendment banning them in 2006.

Granade claimed a gay couple had a “fundamental right” to marry. From where such a fundamental right comes, Granade didn’t say, as the Constitution does not mention the word a single time. In her order Granade did cite the magic 14th Amendment — which has been abused like no other by activist judges to create a whole manner of laws from whole cloth. And it is from whole cloth that Granade created this special “right.”

But notice the incongruity. In Washington, the state’s anti-discrimination law trumps the state’s Constitution and the defendant’s rights under the 1st Amendment. But in Alabama, the 14th Amendment, coupled with, according to supporters of the ruling, the so-called supremacy clause in the Constitution, trump Alabama state law.

When the 14th Amendment became accepted law — it was never legally ratified, just accepted as such — it simply provided that newly freed blacks held the same “privileges and immunities” of owning property, owning businesses, buying and leasing land, and moving about freely as whites. It did not create for blacks or anyone else any special status, privilege or rights. For the next several decades, the courts and the Supreme Court held that view.

That changed in 1925 when an activist judiciary began creating a whole new meaning for the amendment. What changed? Certainly not the words. It was a judiciary that began writing law rather than interpreting the law of the case before it. But the judiciary has no constitutional power to write law. Nothing in the Constitution grants the judiciary that “right.”

Governments have no natural rights. Any rights possessed by government are only those granted it by the citizens. When government begins assuming “rights” and “privileges,” it does not possess and begins assigning special “rights” and “privileges” to selected classes, governments become abusive and tyrannical. And when it begins assigning and granting special “rights,” it begins to assume that it can also remove and restrict the natural rights held by the people.

Since the 1920s, the 14th Amendment has been abused for such purposes as to grant “anchor babies” the rights of citizenship, create a “right” to murder babies in the womb, and grant freedom of speech “rights” to corporations via the Citizen’s United case… but not 1st Amendment rights to Stutzman, apparently. It has been used over and over to trump the will of citizens by throwing out the results of state referenda on a whole host of issues.

There are today all types of people and groups claiming special minority status and seeking and being granted special immunities and privileges under the specious 14th Amendment “due process” clause. Public policy is molded on these manipulated minority influences. This is all an invisible charade, an organism, with a totally different and opposite orientation to individual liberty. It is in reality New Age slavery, a benevolent totalitarianism, an illusion of freedom.

One can always identify minority special interests simply because they welcome government intervention and intrusion (socialism) as a net for perceived social inequality, poverty and underachievement. Guilt manipulation, along with all manner of charades, is used to force social and economic equality where none is earned.

Manipulating minorities who are naturally drawn to socialism is basic political strategy to justify government politics and plunder. The principle of government is that political power is maximized by forcibly leveling every individual to the same status of conformity, collectivism, ecumenicalism and serfdom.

The truth goes deeper. Because of perceived social, cultural, racial and psychic inferiority, minorities desire to parasite on government force and socialism to subvert those they envy and wish to imitate.

Collectivism is so well accepted that well-known “conservatives” and “family values” leaders now accept the idea that rights and liberties are handed down from government and not from God. The constant fight between the branches of collectivist politicians is over which group of them is going to increase the power of the state, not who is going to limit state power and how. In this fact alone we find the explanation for why freedom has disappeared in the world. Virtually everyone is a collectivist now.

Collectivism is but the political outcome of moral degeneracy. It seems that no modern politician can be elected today without the support — or least not the opposition — of the most degenerate but most powerful group of all, the homosexual lobby, even though it represents no more than 5 percent of the population.

Collectivists are all about democracy — which is the rule of the majority — except in the cases of the supposedly “aggrieved classes.” In support of supposed aggrieved classes or minorities, collectivists use brute power and intimidation to achieve their ends. This is demonstrated in the number of people who have lost their jobs or positions for merely expressing their opinions or their faith.

Under the various banners of power, collectivism recruits the masses into globalism. Such recruitment is the satanic opposite of human reproduction which is God’s way of creating families. Recruitment is the only way homosexuals can increase their numbers, thus the homosexual lobby’s influence over government, public education, the mass media, legislatures and even the military.

Even those “conservative national leaders” who campaign on a “family values” platform inevitably fold to the pressure of the homosexuals, once they arrive in Washington, the District of Corruption. Note my frequent use of quotation marks to denote the deceptions of modern politics. Sorry, but the English language has been corrupted by those who have stolen these terms.

How has the American nation fallen so far that the masses and the politicians not only accept but endorse homosexuality? The answer is: tolerance. The politicians have taught Americans to tolerate everything except that which is Godly.

Note that all major religions focus on “tolerance.” They tolerate everything but Christianity. As has been said, those who preach tolerance do not tolerate preaching.

The secret truth is that homosexuality is another recruitment tool for global collectivism. Globalism, with its underlying principle of collectivism, is not primarily an economic or political development. Globalism, collectivism, homosexuality, the mass murder of infants and euthanasia are all the result of moral decline on a mass scale.

Obama, Rand Paul want money for roads; Presidents Madison and Monroe say ‘No’

The president and congressweasels are looking for ways to fill up the till that funds infrastructure projects like roads and bridges that, we are told, “are badly in need of repair.”

The options being considered are, of course, an increased gas tax — after all, gas prices are down, so Americans can surely “afford” it — and a scheme to require companies that have taken advantage of U.S. tax laws (as written by Congress) and prudently invested their money overseas to “repatriate” that money at a 14 percent tax rate.

Obama wants to spend $478 billion on infrastructure projects over the next six years. Not to be outdone, supposed “libertarian” conservative Rand Paul is teaming with Barbara Boxer on a similar plan that would tax repatriated funds at 6.5 percent and divert that money to the Highway Trust Fund.

“The interstate highway system is of vital importance to our economy,” Paul, who is a likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said in a statement.

“All across the country, bridges and roads are deficient and in need of replacement,” he continued. “We can help fund new construction and repair by lowering the repatriation rate and bringing money held by U.S. companies back home. This would mean no new taxes, but more revenue, and it is a solution that should win support from both political parties.”

Never mind that government “trust funds” are nothing more than slush funds the politicos use to pay off their cronies and buy votes by building and paving highways, bridges, etc. — often to nowhere. The federal government’s spending on roads and bridges is unconstitutional. Obama, if he’s the bright “constitutional scholar” he’s made out to be, knows this. And Paul, if he learned anything from his father, knows it as well. Truth be told, they do not care. No one in federal government ever stops to consider if a thing they want to do is a power granted them under the Constitution.

“Who says such spending is unconstitutional?” you ask. It’s none other than true constitutional scholar James Madison, the fourth president of the United States.

In 1817, Congress passed a federal public works bill titled, “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” which would fund the construction of roads and canals and the improvement of water courses to make commerce easier and provide easier transport of troops and material for “the common defense.”

Madison vetoed the bill because “such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution.”

Here is Madison’s veto in its entirety:

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

Of course, Obama has shown little inclination to abide by the Constitution. Quite the opposite, in fact, he has violated it on too many occasions to count. But Rand Paul claims to be a constitutionalist. He voted against the USA Freedom Act — which would have limited NSA spying — because, he said, it included a provision that reauthorized the Patriot Act.

“I stood on principle by opposing a bill that (also) included a provision reauthorizing elements of the Patriot Act that violate the Bill of Rights,” Paul said in explaining his vote.

That “principle” apparently doesn’t extend to unconstitutional government spending.

James Monroe, the fifth president — who was also a delegate to the Continental Congress and an antifederalist who had opposed ratification of the Constitution because he believed (rightly, it turns out) that it gave too much power to the general government — also vetoed a “highway” bill because funding road construction was not an enumerated power.

You can read his veto message here.

Walnuts keep your brain sharp

Walnut packagers cannot tell you this, but walnuts are an amazing superfood.

Studies have shown that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts help to lower cholesterol levels; protect against heart disease, stroke and cancer; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; fight depression and mental illness; and provide a host of other benefits. But putting these benefits on the walnut package label is illegal, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Never mind. I can tell you about these benefits and more provided by the tasty nut.

Researchers from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles found that consuming less than a handful of walnuts each day helped people of almost all ages perform better on a series of six cognitive tests that looked at brain function.

The research was published in the Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging. Lead author Dr. Lenore Arab stated in a press release about the study, “It isn’t every day that research results in such simple advice — eating a handful of walnuts daily as a snack, or as part of a meal, can help improve your cognitive health.”

With some 36 million people in the world today suffering from dementia, why won’t the FDA allow walnut packagers to put this stunning information on their packaging?

Because the FDA is all about protecting Big Pharma, and Big Pharma cannot patent walnuts like it can Aricept, donepezil, Exelonl, Rzadyne, galantamine and rivastigmine — all patented drugs for treating dementia and Alzheimer’s.

Many natural foods provide omega-3 fatty acids, but walnuts are unique in that they contain alpha-linolenic acid, a plant-based omega-3 that is not found in quantity in many other nuts but has been proven to have both heart and brain benefits. No doubt if Big Pharma could figure a way to profit from walnuts it would grab control of them in a second and they would be in every medicine cabinet across the land.

But don’t keep them in the medicine cabinet. Keep them handy for snacking or include them in your salads.

They keep your brain sharp.