By Professor Steven Yates
May 30, 2015

Articles on racial tension and conflict tend to hit nerves. My last one did, evidenced both in my email and on my Facebook page. One person dissented from certain details of my account of the Zimmerman-Martin physical confrontation. He was civil. A few other items were scary! There are people out there who aren’t satisfied that Zimmerman is a marked man whose life has been ruined! They want him dead! (Or, in prison, then dead!)

If I didn’t know better, I’d ask whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Or to the idea of the rule of law, as opposed to lynch mobs, including online where people can post hate blasts under fake names and bogus accounts.

There was no proof that Zimmerman was guilty. Period.

The high-tech lynch mobs might one day get their wish. Zimmerman was recently back in the news. It was reported as a road rage incident, but this wasn’t mere road rage. The other driver had clearly singled him out. The two had had at least one previous confrontation. The other man shot at his truck. Contrary to initial reports, Zimmerman was not hit by gunfire but cut in the face by broken glass and debris when the shot blew a hole in the truck’s passenger window. Zimmerman had a weapon — he’s a licensed gun owner — but did not fire in retaliation. Bleeding but not seriously injured, he walked to an ambulance, and was taken to an emergency room where he was treated and released.

This is the sort of bullying that is common enough in today’s America that it wouldn’t be considered news if Zimmerman hadn’t been the target. The incident ties in with the general decline in civility about which I wrote earlier this year.

Eventually, someone will shoot and not miss. Then, perhaps, the lefties will be happy — or at least satisfied. (I have trouble picturing cultural leftists happy; those I have encountered, in person or online, seemed like cauldrons of pent-up rage.)

I’d begun writing a piece on the melee in Baltimore, drawing attention to the race-and-gender make-up of the six cops directly responsible for Freddie Gray’s death: three white men, two black men, one black woman. Baltimore has a black mayor, a black police commissioner, and a police department that is 43% black. The Baltimore State’s Attorney is black.

Somehow, one might get the impression that Freddie Gray’s tragic death from injuries sustained while in police custody was about more than race, and that the epidemic of police violence in the U.S. is not primarily about race, which is what I have been arguing since the issue rose to visibility following the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Cultural lefties everywhere are railing about “white privilege.”

White privilege? I recall videos of random whites being physically attacked on Baltimore’s streets by blacks. One family was attacked in a passing vehicle. I didn’t see them striking back. They were terrified, and trying to get away. They were fleeing for their lives. In a separate incident, 61-year-old Baltimore resident Richard Fletcher was set upon by a large group of black teens and beaten unconscious. The beating continued despite his unconsciousness. This was sadism, pure and simple. Fletcher’s injuries included broken eye sockets and a brain bleed.

I have never taken the view that racial conflict is the worst threat facing the U.S., although obviously it is a threat — a big one! My view has long been that those with real power want us all divided — by race/ethnicity, by gender, by ideology (“conservative” or “liberal”), by one-percent vs. 99-percent, or by whatever other fault lines happen to be available. The superelites figured out long ago that when one group is given unworkable government favors at the expense of another group that can be demonized, resentments and counterresentments build until they explode. Such explosions can then be exploited, as society as a whole is taken in the desired direction: towards more centralized control, less privacy, less freedom.

There are reasons I do not believe in any substantive “white privilege.” Yes, yes, yes, I can look at history books and see mostly white people. Or walk into a store or restaurant and most of those around me are white — although this was not always the case: there was an incident in South Carolina I have never written about where I clearly was singled out in a public place where I was the only white person in the room, and chose to exit before the confrontation turned ugly. And yes, if a cop stopped me on the interstate, he was probably less wary when he saw I was white. Does that mean I am “privileged”?

Look at it this way: I presently live in Chile. Everyone around me, on a typical day when I must be out and about, speaks Spanish. All I have to do to signal my status as a gringo is open my mouth. My Spanish is halting and broken; I can speak, but make a lot of grammar mistakes. I often have to say “Más lento, por favor,” to even begin to understand what someone is saying to me. Do native speakers of the dominant language here have natural advantages over me because of that? Of course they do. Do they have advantages over us gringos because they grew up here, speak the dominant language, know the culture, know the local customs, etc., etc. Of course. Are we gringos “discriminated against” or victims of “microaggressions” (one of the latest, and silliest, politically correct buzzwords) because of our limitations?

Nonsense. No one is discriminating against us or aggressing against us.

Cultural lefties will respond that my analogy is absurd. Blacks’ ancestors, they will say, were brought to U.S. soil by force and enslaved. We went to Chile voluntarily.

Let’s look at it. Not long after the War Between the States, there were black-owned businesses especially in the South where there were concentrations of newly freed former slaves. These included restaurants, newspapers, schools, and even banks. There were black authors and educators (e.g., Booker T. Washington), and black inventors (e.g., George Washington Carver). Blacks also went into the ministry and a few even held public office. Much of this progress was halted by specific acts of government, especially Supreme Court decisions (e.g., the Slaughter-House cases and Plessy), not discrimination in a general sense or “white privilege.” It is true that a lot of whites feared these advances; that is why the country got “black codes” and Jim Crow. The point is, black historians could make a larger deal of the successful black entrepreneurs one could find prior to 1900 and note their primary enemies were white elites, not white people generally, but this would hurt the Al Sharpton claim that slavery damaged blacks so badly they need reparations. They cannot have it both ways.[*]

The blacks who burned down small businesses in Ferguson and Baltimore had never been slaves. Nor had their parents been slaves; nor their grandparents. They were represented in their local governments. Are they victims? If so, it is of “progressive” policies that promised them advances in society without having to work to achieve them — advances their ancestors were capable of. These policies have destroyed the black family. Prior to the civil rights era blacks did experience workplace discrimination, but their families tended to stay together. They were not in a situation in which 70% of black children grow up without knowing who their fathers are.

I grew up in an all-white suburb in Atlanta, during the era of integration via forced busing to increase racial balance in public schools. As I recall, we white kids didn’t hate the black kids. We didn’t understand them, and they didn’t understand us. If there were opportunities for genuine education about our differences, they weren’t taken. Remember, this was forced on public schools, and those in them had no idea how to carry out what they were being told to do. By high school we were afraid of the black kids, who kept to themselves, usually congregrating in one section of hallway. Most aggression, which wasn’t “micro” either, came from them if one of us had to pass through that section. Their measure of a person’s worth seemed to be physical prowess, which may be why so many black kids of my generation excelled in sports. While again it was doubtless different in the pre-civil rights era, I never saw a white student single out a black student for abuse. Nor did I see a teacher or an administrator do it. I recall black students being openly defiant of teachers on more than one occasion, however.

Many could not read! Some of us wanted to help them learn to read! But we had no idea how to go about it! They had already separated themselves and wanted nothing to do with us!

There were a few sterling exceptions to this pattern: black students, presumably from the same background, who could read, took their studies seriously and made good grades. They were polite to everyone around them. They dressed decently. They did not hang out in the courtyard or on sidewalks smoking cigarettes, then blow smoke in white kids’ faces (yes, they did that, too). I believe they’d figured out that personal effort and responsibility — variables roundly condemned as code for “racism” by cultural lefties and media elites — actually went a long way! Those guys went on to college and probably made something of their lives. I do not imagine their children are burning down businesses in Baltimore.

The majority of blacks don’t realize that white elites in government — a bastion of real privilege — sold them a bill of goods from top to bottom right from the start. Today, they’ve basically developed a different culture, one lived in decrepit public housing and on the streets. Perhaps in a sense those of us who lived in safe, well-kept neighborhoods should feel “privileged” not to have grown up in that environment. But such claims won’t bear the weight cultural leftists are placing on them. How do they explain why Asians, with far fewer numbers than blacks and often unable to speak English, came to the U.S. with nothing but the clothes on their backs and went on to succeed brilliantly at whatever they tried, often outperforming whites in business or their studies? Is there some hidden “Asian privilege” none of the lefties or media elites have noticed?

All this is somewhat beside the point. The potential for media-fomented clashes between blacks and police are taking the U.S. closer to an abyss. For there will continue to be clashes. One day, conditions will be just right for another police murder, perhaps caught on video, to provoke a riot. Again, police will be ordered to stand down (as they were in both Ferguson and Boston). National Guard troops will be called in. Someone will get trigger happy, and instead of the situation coming under control, it will spread.

For nothing is being done about deadly violence at the hands of police. Over 400 people, black and white alike, have been killed by cops so far in 2015. While I’ve no doubt most officers just want to do their jobs and serve their communities, a few are dangerously violent sociopaths. Little is being done to contain this element. If anything, militarization of police forces with weaponry suitable for a battlefield has made matters several magnitudes worse!

Militarization of police is part of the ongoing militarization of American society generally. What, for example, is Jade Helm 15 really all about?

You’ve heard of it, no doubt. Just this morning as I write this article, I watched a video taken in Texas of a lengthy caravan hauling all manner of military vehicles and equipment down a major interstate.

Government officials insist Jade Helm is a standard training exercise, not different from its predecessors, intended to prepare troops for action elsewhere in the world. Across the aisle are those convinced we are seeing the beginning of an armed occupation of the affected states, which include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and southern California. Texas, moreover, was deemed “hostile” on an official Jade Helm map, which raised hackles all across alternative media.

The abrupt closings of five Walmarts, all in Jade Helm states and projected to remain shuttered for up to six months, have fueled speculation that the stores will be used as staging areas. Others have speculated that this is company retaliation against employees demanding better wages and threatening to unionize. I wish to emphasize that we have no hard evidence of either one. Walmart’s official explanation—plumbing problems—seems to this writer a stretch. Does it take six months to fix plumbing problems? Be that as it may, those convinced that Jade Helm is more than an innocent exercise got the attention not only of Texas officials including the governor but also GOP presidential aspirants Ted Cruz and Rand Paul who have pledged to keep an eye on things.

Neither of the extremes is likely, of course. I do not believe Jade Helm will impose martial law on Texas. But I doubt it is as innocent as its defenders claim. We should be aware that specific events could bring martial law to U.S. soil.

Do I need to point out that another 9/11 could happen at almost any time? Or that the U.S. federal government definitely appears to be preparing for something!

It might be another terror attack, real or false flag. A real terrorist attack could be planned and carried out by foreigners who have entered the U.S. illegally (and I do not mean people from Mexico), as blowback against any of the U.S.’s many destructive wars of choice in the Middle East. This is not impossible, given the utter refusal by both Republicans and Democrats to secure the country’s southern border! (Again: border security is not wanted by the superelite, whose corporations profit from cheap labor just as the mostly Spanish-speaking populations undermine the dominant culture and divide the country further.)

It might be general civil unrest — an Arab Spring in U.S. soil — accompanying a major economic downturn. This is worth noting because even as I write, the U.S. economy appears to be slowing after the most tepid “recovery” in U.S. history. Except for Wall Street, of course, the U.S. never really recovered from the Meltdown of 2008. The present “5.4% unemployment rate” has been achieved by consigning roughly 100 million people to the status of “not in the labor force.”

It might be a massive, multi-city race riot following either another suspicious death in police custody or a highly publicized nonprosecution of a white cop for shooting and killing another unarmed black man. These days, any white cop who shoots a black man has to be either stupid or sociopathic.

It might be a combination of these. If the economy does abruptly turn sour, with the “too big to fail” banks even bigger, the majority of jobs part-time and paying starvation wages, economic inequality now worse than it was in the 1960s with no end in sight, every major city in the U.S. will become a powder keg.

When whatever happens, happens, it is going to catch the bulk of the majority-white TV-watching public with their pants down and around their ankles. Most, after all, are far more fascinated by the Kardashians than what is occurring in the corridors of power. So much for their “white privilege.”

This column hasn’t been as focused as I usually prefer. The U.S. is approaching its abyss from many directions at once. Events are happening so rapidly that writing columns about all of them is impossible.

Why civilizations collapse has been widely studied. While scholars differ on a lot of details, most agree that few if any major civilizations are invaded. They decompose from within. Having risen energetically, they grow complacent. They betray whatever principles gave rise to them and become bloated, arrogant empires. Gradually, corruption saps their energies. Trust in public officials declines and slowly takes loyalty down with it. Those in positions of authority grow increasingly abusive and violent. When working within the system repeatedly fails to yield satisfactory results, abuses of power eventually lead to armed rebellion and separatism. The U.S. is presently at the stage where massive corruption in all the dominant institutions is in evidence, and loyalty is fading. The inherent violence of its power structures is clear, but has not yet prompted organized resistance or secession movements with sufficient influence to commandeer state governments, which is what will be necessary for such movements to gain traction.

It’s just a matter of time, however. Whatever else one says, those in power are not stupid. They know the U.S. is rotting from the inside out, and do not plan to go down without a fight. Maybe this is why they are militarizing police all over the country (even small towns). Maybe this is what they are using Jade Helm to prepare for.

[*] Once, perhaps 15 years ago, there was a very comprehensive black history website that listed black achievers by name, date, and accomplishment, but that site appears to be gone. One can find relevant information on scattered sites by googling, e.g., black inventor. But as the cultural left has gained influence including over the Internet, the majority of websites now emphasize the official narrative, meaning that unless you have physical books or a printout the older site (I don’t), the claims in this paragraph will be difficult to document. I will be happy to send the bibliography I’ve worked from to anyone who requests it.

© 2015 Steven Yates – All Rights Reserved



Steven Yates’s new ebook is entitled: Philosophy Is Not Dead: A Vision of the Discipline’s Future.

E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@yahoo.com

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Financial Reset Coming? China’s Currency Nears World Reserve Status + Washington Protects Its Lies With More Lies



5-29-2015 12-17-15 PM

By Mac Slavo

The world is anticipating a new global reality with huge implications: China’s yuan is poised to get recognized as a global reserve currency.









I think there will be a reset of the financial industry…

I think China is being allowed to accumulate gold purposefully by the American government… I believe that the Chinese need to own at least the same amount as the U.S. owns before this reset occursI think that there’s some kind of deal that’s being made between all the central banks behind the scenes and that’s why you’re seeing governments accumulating the metal.


It could mean a major shakeup to the norms that Americans and other Westerners have been accustomed.

But beyond that, the currency will ultimately be digital. Cash will likely be banned to enhance control, and all payments will be authorized and monitored. Through a new wave of bank fees and fines, and (outrageously) charges for deposits, average people will be hurt on all sides of transactions by money that has been thoroughly debased and manipulated.






 Washington Protects Its Lies With More Lies


By Paul Craig Roberts


Americans are gullible, and thought does not come easily to them, but if they try hard enough they must wonder why it would be necessary for the government to concoct a totally false account of the deed if Washington kills an alleged terrorist. Why not just give the true story? Why does the true story have to come out years later from anonymous sources leaked to Hersh?

I can tell you for a fact that if SEALs had encountered bin Laden in Abbottabad, they would have used stun grenades and tear gas to take him alive. Bin Laden would have been paraded before the media, and a jubilant White House would have had a much photographed celebration pinning medals on the SEALs who captured him.

Instead, we have a murder without a body, which under law classifies as no murder, and a story that was changed several times by the White House itself within 48 hours of the alleged raid and has now been rewritten again by disinformation planted on Hersh.

Perhaps the release of book titles allegedly found in bin Laden’s alleged residence in Abbottabad is part of the explanation. Who can imagine the “terror mastermind” sitting around reading what the presstitute London Telegraph calls bin Laden’s library of conspiracy theories about 9/11 and Washington’s foreign and economic policies?

Keep in mind that the government’s claim that these books were in bin Laden’s Abbottabad library comes from the same government that told you Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that Assad used chemical weapons, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and that Russia invaded Ukraine. There is no evidence whatsoever that bin Laden had these books, just as there is no evidence for any claim made by Washington. In the absence of evidence, Washington’s position amounts to this: “It is true if we say so.”

I would wager that the Hersh story was planted in order to gin up renewed interest in the bin Laden saga, which could then be used to discredit Washington’s critics. Notice that the authors in bin Laden’s alleged library are those careful and knowledgeable people who have severely whipped Washington with the truth. The whip wielders are Noam Chomsky, David Ray Griffin, Michel Chossudovsky, Greg Palast, Michael Scheuer, William Blum. You get the picture. You mustn’t believe these truth-tellers, because bin Laden approved of them and had their books in his library. By extension, will these truth-tellers be accused of aiding and abetting terrorism?

Obama claims to have settled the score in mafia godfather fashion with bin Laden for 9/11. But there is no body and not even a consistent story about what happened to the body. The sailors aboard the ship from which the White House reported bin Laden was given a burial at sea report no such burial took place. The SEAL unit that allegedly supplied the team that killed an unarmed and undefended bin Laden was mysteriously wiped out in a helicopter crash. It turns out that the SEALs were flown into combat against the Taliban in an antique, half-century-old 1960s vintage helicopter. Parents of the dead SEALs are demanding to have unanswered questions answered, a story that the presstitute media has conveniently dropped for Washington’s convenience.

Other than 9/11 itself, never has such a major event as bin Laden’s killing had such an enormous number of contradictory official and quasi-official explanations, unanswered questions and evasions. And the vast number of evasions and contradictions arouse no interest from the Western media or from the somnolent and insouciant American public.

Now it turns out that Washington has “lost” the bin Laden “death files,” thus protecting in perpetuity the fabricated story of bin Laden’s killing.

Here is Tom Hartman’s interview with David Ray Griffin: “Is bin Laden dead or alive?

Here is Philip Kraske’s OpEdNews article on Steve Kroft’s orchestrated “60 Minutes” interview with Obama on the killing of Osama bin Laden.

This article provided courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.



Don’t you know that being ignorant of your government’s lies and misrepresentations, gives them the power to continue? It also shows their total disrespect for those who voted for them, and empowers them to do even more nefarious skullduggery. Liars for leaders cannot be ignored, or chaos reigns. We will all pay an enormous price for accepting their actions as normal for politicians. Damn near every country on earth hates us, the people who you rely on for personal protection have morphed into wannabe killers, your assets belong to the Banking Cartel, your future is a guaranteed physical and emotional misery, and your children will turn on you for your cowardice and failure to protect them. Good luck suckers!

10 13 11 flagbar

Time to Put Your Money in your Mattress! Economists Warn Feds will Grab Retirement Funds



5-28-2015 9-59-55 AM

Dr. Jerome R. Corsi / WND

NEW YORK – The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Tibble v. Edison has once again stoked ongoing fears in the financial services industry that the Obama administration might be preparing for a takeover of private retirement savings.

Some economists believe the court decision sets the ground for the administration to begin nationalizing 401(k) retirement savings plans under the banner of protecting individuals from predatory financial planners. The administration has in mind planners who recommend mutual fund investments on which they receive excessive commissions and fees, which curbs an investor’s gains during the 401(k)’s tax-deferred accumulation phase.

Yet most economists read Tibble much more narrowly. They argue that the justices’ only concern is that an objective methodology be implemented that forces financial planners to make recommendations on the basis of performance, avoiding mutual funds with high loads and fees that benefit financial planners unreasonably.

Is Obama planning to grab your 401(k)?

Economist Martin Armstrong, writing on his blog ArmstrongEconomics.com, asserted the Tibble decision “sets the stage to justify government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners.” He noted that 401(k) plans are part of the private pension market he estimates currently totals about $19.4 trillion.

Clearly the size of the retirement savings market is attractive to a federal government at a time when the federal deficit has increased some 80 percent in the past six years, with the federal debt now totaling more than $18 trillion.

An Investment Company Institute report published March 25 suggests the U.S. private retirement savings asset market may be even larger than Armstrong estimates. The ICI pegs total U.S. retirement assets at $24.7 trillion as of Dec. 31, 2014, with IRA assets estimated as $7.4 trillion and 401(k) assets at $4.6 trillion of that accumulated total.

The fear that the Obama administration may seek to grab private retirement assets is not entirely unjustified, as WND has reported. In 2010, the Obama administration began exploring strategies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in programs such as 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds. The aim would be to lock in secured maturity values while providing the federal government a means of funding the $1.5 trillion a year needed to keep the government operating under the federal budget deficit estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

In 2012, WND reported that in its annual budget proposal, the Obama administration endorsed “Automatic IRAs,” a plan introduced into Congress by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass, and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. According to the plan, private companies would be automatically enrolled in government-mandated IRAs, forcing those businesses to contribute on behalf of their employees a “default amount” equal to 3 percent of an employee’s pay, unless the employee specifically opts out of the plan.

Earlier this year, WND reported the concern expressed by Rush Limbaugh that Obama intends to extract money from private retirement accounts. He cited the White House’s proposed fiscal year 2016 budget as proof Democrats have a plan to tax retirement accounts as a means of funding the administration’s ever-expanding social welfare, including services for the estimated 5-6 million illegal immigrants given “deferred deportation” under Obama’s executive actions.

Supreme Court disciplines financial planners

Columnist Chuck Jaffe, writing in MarketWatch.com, said the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tibble is a simple idea that impacts all retirement savers.

“Workers should have access to the best fee structures available for their retirement plan,” he said. “The company providing or overseeing the plan has a responsibility to employees to make sure that the investments – and most importantly the fee structure on the plan – is the best available.”



There is no absolute proof any of the above is going to happen, because that’s always been the way government’s work. When it happens we will not see it coming until we wake up some day and smell the shit on the fan. Pass this info to your broker – accountant – or whatever their called and watch his reaction. All of them will deny that snow is cold, or governments go broke. This has been going on in the EU and it will come here just as sure as ice melts in your hand. HEADS UP FOLKS!

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM






5-27-2015 8-01-28 AM

By Ron Ewart
May 27, 2015

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy”….. [or a Republic] —Charles de Montesquieu French Philosopher 1689 to 1755

Our last article entitled “Is It Too Harsh To Force Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport?” was of vital importance to every legal citizen in America. It laid out a succinct and detailed argument on how illegal aliens and the government-created magnets that draw them here, impact our way of life, our culture, our sovereignty, the criminal element, disease and the rule of law, but especially our pocket books. It demonstrated with clarity that to deport or force self-deportation was nowhere near as harsh as the impact that illegal immigration has on every legal American.

Expecting that this article would touch many hearts and minds of legal Americans, we had predicted, unfortunately falsely, a significant response. To our disappointment, we received only four (4) responses. One of those responses said this:

“As always many thanks Ron for your articles. “Too harsh on illegal aliens” was outstanding. From 1972 to 911, my partners and I saw the political fiasco, illegal immigration feel good policies disregarding INA codes for decades from Reagan’s 1986 Amnesty.”

We are grateful for this man’s acknowledgement, but as the poem says, “one swallow does not a summer make.”

Many conservative writers and talk show hosts have regurgitated the conservative message on the airways for decades ad nauseam and in cyber space since the birth of the Internet. Rush Limbaugh, with a huge national audience, has been on the air for going on 26 years and yet, with all that power to persuade he has not been able to stem the tide of liberalism. Rush Limbaugh has done nothing more than exploit the political schism that exists in America today, reaping huge profits from his advertisers and his products in the process. We say, more power to him. He was and still is using a niche’ market and the tools of capitalism to make a profit, as millions do. It matters not that his impact is negligible ….. to him.

Thousands of very good conservative authors write daily or weekly articles on the deadly plague that is Progressivism, as it uses its agenda of collectivism, social justice, radical environmentalism, multi-culturalism, one-world government, political correctness and the public treasury to buy votes, control the masses and maintain perpetual power. But the power of the Progressives has grown to the point that more Americans find a sleazy, hopelessly corrupt, power hungry, insanely ambitious, half man, “What-Difference-Does-It-Make” Hillary Clinton a better candidate for president than any one of the 25 declared or undeclared Republican candidates. That’s not Hillary’s fault! It is a testament to how successful the Progressives have been over the last 100 years in buying off the public for votes …. with your money.

It is going to take the people to rise up en masse, outside of the political system before there will be any changes. It is going to take massive resistance against government policies. Voting and writing to our Senators and Congressmen “ain’t” going to cut it any more, if it ever did. The simple reality is, it boils down to ….. NO GUTS, NO FREEDOM!

We have tried to get people to demonstrate their resistance to government and drafted a Petition calling for a Declaration of Open Resistance. Out of the thousands of people who read and forward our articles, seven (7) people actually signed the petition. SEVEN people out of tens of thousands had the guts! The excuse is that petitions are worthless and the excuse is valid when only seven people sign the petition. A petition will only have impact if millions of people sign it and act on it.

Most of the American people are like lambs to the slaughter. Half are on the dole and won’t bite the hand that feeds them and the other half are just plain scared of government. They have good reason to be scared. Nevertheless, they aren’t going to do anything to upset their little apple cart, or draw attention to themselves. The similarities to what happened twice in Europe in the 20the Century, are deeply troubling.

Sure there are some fighters in our midst and they are ready to fight, if it wasn’t for the fact that they are too few, nationally disorganized, rudderless, have no concrete plan to win and out of touch with others who are ready to fight.

In contrast, every time we write an article, we draw attention from the government. They monitor our website and might even have our phone tapped for all we know. We are still fighting the IRS, as are other beleaguered conservatives. Most conservative authors know what we are talking about and have felt the “sting” of government because of what they write. We hear stories of clandestine censorship, missing e-mails, disappearing e-mails, blocked e-mails and hacked websites. About 4 to 5 times a year our e-mails are blocked by Comcast, requiring a significant effort on our part to get them un-blocked.

In America’s fly-over country, rural landowners are taking a direct, frontal attack from government on their livelihood, their income and their property rights, from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Endangered Species Act, (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Agency (USFW) and eminent domain, local and state government regulations, along with the U. S. Congress that provides the legislation and the enforcement power. These federal, state and local agencies are owned, occupied and are driven by powerful, wealthy environmental organizations. Environmentally indoctrinated graduates from America’s liberal colleges, staff these agencies. Rural landowners are virtually powerless to stop them and are forced to knuckle under when “Uncle Gov” comes calling. Who speaks for the rural landowner? NARLO does!

For 10 years and over 500 articles, some of them damn good, and like so many other authors, we have failed to make a difference. Progressivism has metastasized into a full-blown, invasive, out-of-control cancer in America with no cure in sight until an excruciating, painful, disfiguring death overtakes her. Any potential cure could, in all likelihood, kill the patient before it cures the cancer, as many cancer cures do, that is of course if anyone invents a cure.

“You can hit a nail with a hammer a million times, but if the force of the hammer is not greater than the friction the nail encounters as it enters the wood, the nail will not move.” —Ron Ewart

There have been many workable solutions proffered by thousands of dedicated patriots. But without a charismatic leader, a well organized national entity, millions of devoted followers and the billions of dollars it will take to implement any one of those workable solutions, there will not be enough energy to overcome the 100 plus year inertia of the Progressives and the Progressives know it.

So far, our conservative “hammer” has not had sufficient force to drive the nail into Progressivism (Socialism) and silence it forever.

Insanity, according to Einstein, is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. That is exactly the insanity that all conservative authors, talk show hosts and bloggers have been unwittingly practicing. Like voting, writing articles or espousing conservative principles on the airways and in cyberspace are not enough. Unless peaceful solutions are designed and implemented to “cure” this cancer on a massive scale, radical and violent alternatives will suddenly erupt in skirmishes and clashes all over the place, like they have in Los Angeles, Ferguson and Baltimore, but for entirely different reasons. The rallying call at these clashes will be “FREEDOM!“, punctuated by guns. These skirmishes and clashes will be put down with even more intense violence by over-powering government forces and nothing will be accomplished. What is even worse, many of the skirmishes could easily erupt in full-scale civil war. Whether skirmishes, clashes, or civil war, freedom will have not been assuaged.

We have put forth many initiatives to inspire people to take action in the defense of liberty. Sadly, we have nothing but an empty wallet to show for it. At our age wasting time and money is a fool’s errand. In the coming weeks we will be re-assessing our effectiveness as a conservative author and determine whether to continue, or whether to pursue more lucrative endeavors.

What we will not do is suspend or terminate our efforts on behalf of the American rural landowner through our almost 10-year old, nationally known organization, the “National Association of Rural Landowners”. Our website is crammed full of useful information and tools for the urban and rural landowner. If you are a rural landowner, you owe it to yourself to check us out. If you are in need of an advocate, or a problem solver for land use issues, we are here to HELP.


© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved


Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org


Do not make the mistake of assuming that Ron is going belly up, and giving up the fight. He and I will fight this tyrannical bunch of scumbags until our blood covers the ground. I refuse to live in the world they are building, and I doubt not that Ron feels the same way.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM






Since I first started to write columns for NewsWithViews in 2005 about the need to revitalize “the Militia of the several States”—a full decade ago—that subject has received scant support, sympathy, or even mention from the run of self-styled conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and (most depressing of all) champions of the Second Amendment who have made themselves prominent on the Internet. Instead, if they say anything at all about the matter, they tend to parrot the line put out by a certain notorious “‘poverty’ law center”, that anyone who mentions the word “militia” (except to disparage the concept) is some sort of “extremist” or other crackpot whose goal is “to overthrow the federal government”. Or they take the position that the only “militia” in which Americans can have confidence are “militia” with no connections to “government” at all—and that somehow the Constitution provides for such “militia”. Or they contend that Americans’ right to defend themselves with arms against private criminals and tyrants in public office has nothing to do with any “militia”, but is exclusively an “individual” right with no “collective” purpose or manifestation. Apparently, as far as these people are concerned, that the original Constitution incorporates “the Militia of the several States” as permanent, integral components of the federal system of government—and that the Second Amendment conjoins “[a] well regulated Militia” with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” in the very same sentence, and even declares that “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”—are facts without significance (or facts the significance of which has somehow escaped them).

These are not the only examples of the astoundingly tortuous mental gymnastics in which such people indulge, for what reasons Heaven alone can fathom. For, on the one hand, many of them predict with approval that Americans may soon have, and will want, to depend upon leaders in the Armed Forces who will thrust themselves into positions of political authority in order to save this country in the event of a nationwide crisis. Yet, on the other hand, not a few of these very same prophets repeatedly warn Americans that “the federal government” is plotting to deploy the Armed Forces to impose “martial law” throughout this country, under color of either a real calamity or a “false-flag” deception. Apparently, in these people’s imaginations, at one and the same time the Armed Forces are not just capable of, but also intent upon, both a coup d’état to enforce the Constitution and a coup d’état to eviscerate the Constitution. (Note that in the term “Armed Forces” I include both the regular Army of the United States and the National Guard—because, although people often assume that the National Guard is some sort of “militia”, it actually is not any kind of “militia” at all, but instead consists of the “Troops, or Ships of War” which the States may “keep * * * in time of Peace” “with[ ] the Consent of Congress”, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution.)

I presume, however, that the upper echelons of America’s Armed Forces are not yet composed predominantly of aspiring Bonapartists, Peronists, and other assorted uniformed usurpers and traitors who itch to seize control of this country under whatever pretext of faux patriotism or pressure of some manufactured crisis can supply them with a plausible excuse for the imposition of “martial law”. Rather, until the necessary experiment falsifies the hypothesis, I believe that the true patriots within the Armed Forces should, could, and (with the proper encouragement and education) would go a long way towards saving this country by doing exactly what that “‘poverty’ law center” and its partisans, dupes, and useful idiots of both the political “Left” and “Right” so deprecate. Through successfully promoting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, the Armed Forces would help to prevent the assassination of the Constitution, by foreclosing the deadly threat of “martial law”, not just now but once and for all. (As I have written a lengthy book, entitled By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of “Martial Law”, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here.) Not only that, the Armed Forces would help to provide the institutions Americans desperately need in order (among other things) to secure honest elections, to introduce an economically sound and constitutional alternative currency within the several States, to put teeth into “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, and to make meaningful the assertion of the Tenth Amendment that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, both today and for the foreseeable future. (As I have written an even more lengthy book, entitled The Sword and Sovereignty, on this subject I shall not elaborate on it here, either.)

But how should this be done? Quite simply. Every time questions of “homeland security” arise in Congress and the States’ legislatures, spokesmen for the Armed Forces who are called as expert witnesses should make it a point to testify in favor of revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” as the missing, critical, and indispensable element in any coherent, comprehensive, and constitutional plan for “homeland security”. Not just referring to revitalization, not just recommending it, not just urging it—but demanding it in no uncertain terms. Explaining that no fully constitutional Militia now exist in any State in this Union. And emphasizing that something needs to be done as soon as possible to correct this situation—because, without revitalization of the Militia, this country very soon will find itself in exceedingly dire trouble with which the Armed Forces are almost entirely unqualified, as well as quite ill prepared, to deal.

That is what spokesmen for the Armed Forces should be telling legislators at every opportunity. If they did, their audiences would have to pay serious attention to what was being said. The big “mainstream media” could not get away with refusing to report the story. Average Americans would take notice. And even the mass of self-described conservatives, patriots, constitutionalists, and champions of the Second Amendment could no longer disregard or dismiss the matter!

Exactly why, though, should the Armed Forces take it upon themselves—indeed, perhaps go out on a political limb—to promote revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”? For two reasons: principle and practicality.

  1. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of imperative moral, political, and legal principle.Perhaps the most familiar of the mottos people associate with the Armed Forces is “Duty, Honor, Country”. But what is the very first and most important duty all members of the Armed Forces—and especially the higher ranks in the Officer Corps—owe to their country? Why, to do their best to understand, to protect, to defend, and to promote America’s foundational laws: namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Consider first the Declaration. Intent upon “let[ting] Facts be submitted to a candid world”, the Declaration set out a litany of abuses related to King George III’s deployment of “Standing Armies” and their imposition of “martial law” against the American Colonies:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our legislatures.—He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.—He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:—For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:— * * * For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:—For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences * * * .—[and] He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging war against us.

These, the Declaration asserted, constituted “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States”.

Moreover, the Declaration did not reflect American patriots’ mere disapproval, or disparagement, or even disgust with those abuses, but instead evidenced their downright denunciation of such wrongdoing. Those “repeated injuries and usurpations” constituted no less than violations of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, so serious that they justified “the good People” of the Colonies in absolving themselves “from all Allegiance to the British Crown” and in severing “all political connection between them[selves] and the State of Great Britain”.

Self-evidently, in the light of this history, no member of America’s Armed Forces who takes seriously the motto “Duty, Honor, Country” should desire to give anyone the impression—or worse, grounds for suspicion—or worst of all, an actual basis in “Facts [to] be submitted to a candid world”—that he would ever advocate, participate in, or aspire to take a commanding rôle with respect to the sort of abuses in condemnation of which the Declaration excoriated George III. Nonetheless, the present-day para-militarization of State and Local police forces, the provision to those forces of military equipment by the Department of Defense, and the close coöperation being effected between the Armed Forces and State and Local “law-enforcement agencies” in various domestic “anti-terrorism” exercises all supply “Facts” from which “a candid world” could reasonably draw the conclusion that someone is preparing the Armed Forces to implementsomething akin to “martial law” somewhere within this country under some circumstances in the foreseeable future—as well as conditioning common Americans to accept this turn of events as somehow justifiable as well as inevitable. The obvious danger is that, once the precedent for such a deployment has been set anywhere within the United States, rogue public officials can concoct one ersatz “crisis” or another in order to rationalize further deployments of the Armed Forces just about everywhere, until “martial law” (in effect if not in name) becomes commonplace.

Unless Americans will have lost their wits entirely, though, they will eventually recognize these events as parts of what the Declaration of Independence described as “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object[, which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”—and the stage will then be set for desperate patriots once again to assert “their right” and “their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. Yet that, one may rest assured, will be a consummation devoutly to be avoided, if at all possible. Certainly the Armed Forces should not want to be the immediate cause of such a calamity it—indeed, to be the moving parties, as the Armed Forces are the only establishments that can actually attempt to impose “martial law” within America. Fortunately for them, they can always put that praiseworthy desire into effect. For they are the only parties capable of absolutely guaranteeing that “martial law” will never be imposed, because if they do not impose it no one else can. For part two click below.



To be sure, one must take seriously the objection that extraordinary situations may arise “in the Course of human events” when and where only some “martial” institution can adequately execute the “law”, and that this possibility must somehow justify some form of “martial law” administered by America’s Armed Forces, notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence’s unqualified animadversions on “martial law” administered by Britain’s “Standing Armies”. Obviously, though, the great statesmen who subscribed to the Declaration, along with the other enlightened patriots of that time, were not unaware of this seeming paradox—or of how to resolve it.

The solution to the apparent problem of “martial law” is found, in pellucid terms, in the Constitution. No spurious distinction between America’s Armed Forces of today and Britain’s “Standing Armies” of yesteryear need be attempted. For “martial law” administered by Americans can no more claim a place within the Constitution than “martial law” as administered by the British found favor in the Declaration. That is, as a matter of constitutional law, “martial law” in that sense can find no place at all.

As the Preamble to the Constitution attests, “WE THE PEOPLE * * * ordain[ed] and establish[ed] th[e] Constitution”. However, WE THE PEOPLE enjoyed the legal authority to do so only because the Declaration of Independence “solemnly publish[ed] and declare[d], That the[ ] United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; * * * and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do”. But “may of right do” in accordance with what standards of “right”? Obviously, the standards established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which, as the Declaration explained, alone “entitle[d]” Americans “to assume among the powers of the earth, [a] separate and equal station”. Those “Laws” establish that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers”—and only “just powers”—“from the consent of the governed”. Even the People themselves cannot consent to be governed by any “Form of Government” purportedly vested with “[un]just powers”. (Which, of course, is why the Preamble lists “establish[ing] Justice”, not “imposing Injustice”, as one of the Constitution’s six goals.)

Plainly enough, America’s Founders did not consider “martial law” such as George III attempted to fasten upon them to be a “just power” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, or they would not have catalogued and condemned it in the Declaration of Independence as part of “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny” on the King’s part. Therefore, imposing “martial law” of that ilk on America’s citizenry cannot be included within the “Acts and Things” which the Declaration asserted that “Independent States may of right do”. As an unjust power, it could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” by “the consent of the governed” in the late 1700s—neither by WE THE PEOPLE to their State governments in the several States’ constitutions, nor by WE THE PEOPLE to the government of the Union in the Constitution of the United States. And because a power to impose “martial law” could not have been delegated to any “Form of Government” in America then, no “Form of Government” in America can claim to exercise such a power now. “Martial law” is as morally, politically, and legally impossible under the Constitution today as it was impossible under the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Nonetheless, the Constitution does provide for certain “martial” institutions to which it assigns the authority, responsibility, and capability “to execute the Laws of the Union” “when called into the actual Service of the United States”: namely, “the Militia of the several States”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. It delegates no such authority or responsibility to the Armed Forces, though. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 12 through 14; and art. II, § 2, cl. 1. So, if “martial law” is defined in general terms as the execution of the “Laws of the Union” (or of the several States each within her own jurisdiction) by a “martial” institution, then the only institutions constitutionally entitled, and required, to engage in such execution are “the Militia of the several States”, either “when called into the actual Service of the United States” or otherwise in the performance of duties mandated to them by their own States.

By delegating to the Militia—and to the Militia alone—the right, power, and duty to execute the laws, the Constitution solves the apparent paradox of “martial law” mentioned above. For, although the Militia are governmental institutions of the States, and permanent components of the federal system, they are not “standing armies”. Perhaps nothing makes this dichotomy clearer than Article 13 of Virginia’s original Declaration of Rights in 1776: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty”. Similarly, the Second Amendment declares “well regulated Militia” to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. So the “law” executed by the Militia, even in a “martial” fashion were the circumstances to warrant it, would always be executed by THE PEOPLE themselves for the ultimate purpose of securing their own freedom.

The problem which confronts America today is that, if constitutional “martial law” were ever needed in response to some major nationwide crisis, constitutional “martial law” could not be had. For the constitutional “Militia of the several States”, for all intents and purposes, do not exist—and therefore cannot be “called into the actual Service of the United States” in order “to execute the Laws of the Union”, or called forth to fulfill the analogous duty for their States. Some Americans have voluntarily enrolled in the National Guard, which a statute deceptively denominates as “the organized militia”, when actually it is no “militia” at all—whereas all other Americans who are eligible for service in the Militia have been consigned by that same statute to what it calls “the unorganized militia”. See 10 U.S.C. § 311. Relevant statutes of the States follow the same pattern. As the name implies, “the unorganized militia” is precisely that: unorganized, unarmed, undisciplined, untrained, and ungoverned. Contrast U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16. But, as American legal history proves beyond any possible doubt, an “unorganized militia” is as much of a contradiction in terms as a “square circle”—and therefore is a constitutional impossibility. (See my book The Sword and Sovereignty.)

What obviously needs to be done in order to forefend the danger of “martial law” of the sort denounced by the Declaration of Independence, as well as to provide for the possibility that a “martial” execution of the laws allowable under the Declaration and the Constitution may become necessary in this country the not-too-distant future, is for the “martial” institutions which rogue public officials expect will impose “martial law” on common Americans—that is, the Armed Forces—to state publicly, categorically, and repeatedly that: (i) the imposition of “martial law” in any form is not and cannot be the constitutional mission of the Armed Forces; and (ii) execution of “the Laws of the Union” and of the several States in a “martial” fashion under exigent circumstances is the constitutional prerogative of “the Militia of the several States”, and only the Militia. Inasmuch as no one is better positioned at the present time to make this clear to legislators and the general public than are the Armed Forces themselves, it is their duty to do so.

  1. Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” is a matter of practical necessity.Unfortunately, even with a constitutional principle in one hand, today one still needs an Abraham Lincoln Federal Reserve Note in the other hand to be able to buy a small espresso in a fashionable coffee shop. That is, constitutional principles command very little purchasing power in the contemporary “real world” of egotism, materialism, and hedonism, which allow only two notes on their discordant scale: namely, “me…me…me” and “dough…dough…dough”. So even the Armed Forces will need some very practical incentives to promote revitalization of the Militia. Some of the most important of these, however, are not difficult to identify.
  2. Just as an authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” forms no part of the Armed Forces’ express constitutional mandate, so too does it fall outside, and would be expected to hinder the fulfillment, of their vital practical mission to deter aggressors in foreign venues and to defeat them if deterrence fails and Congress must “declare War”. (Surely it is no accident that Congress’s power to do so, set out in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, is immediately followed by its powers “[t]o raise and support Armies” and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” in Clauses 12 and 13.) Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” will enable the Armed Forces to devote their undivided attention to their constitutionally proper rôle, relieved of the possible burden of being diverted into domestic difficulties through deployments that smack of “martial law”. The Militia would “secure the home front” by maintaining law and order domestically in its proper form: namely, what the Second Amendment denotes as “a free State”.
  3. In the event of an unavoidable nationwide domestic crisis, such as the collapse of the monetary and banking systems, revitalization of the Militia would be requisite, for the obvious reason that the Armed Forces could never deploy enough “boots on the ground” to re-establish and then maintain law and order in every locality where significant social unrest arose and civil disobedience broke out. Part of the explicit constitutional authority of the Militia is to “suppress Insurrections”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. And enrollments in revitalized Militia would outnumber by far the total possible enlistments in the Armed Forces. Even if the Armed Forces could mobilize forces arguably sufficient in raw numbers to quell violent disturbances throughout the entire country, those forces would face innumerable, often novel, and predictably insuperable difficulties in dealing with other untold problems peculiar to the thousands of unfamiliar Localities they would be called upon to police. Revitalized Militia, in contrast, would be composed entirely of Local citizens—raised, organized, specially trained, and always deployed at the Local level—and imbued with intimate knowledge of and sympathy for their Localities and the people who lived there, which would enable them to deal intelligently and effectively with all of the disparate situations which arose in different areas of the country.
  4. A collapse of the monetary and banking systems is not the only conceivable nationwide or regional catastrophe which might threaten this country in the near future. Consideration must also be given to pandemics, famines, natural disasters, and massive industrial failures or accidents, to name but a few. The Armed Forces are not prepared, and therefore cannot be expected—let alone ordered—to deal with all of the complex challenges each and every one of these events could bring forth. Indeed, the Armed Forces can never be prepared for such duty, because they have few, if any, places in their tables of organization for people with the various kinds of highly technical knowledge and specialized experience which would be vital to draw upon in the event of such crises. In contrast, being composed of just about every adult American not enrolled in the Armed Forces, “the Militia of the several States” would not just as a matter of fact have access to, but also as a matter of law could call upon and dispose of, almost the entirety of national talent in every relevant field—with many, if not the vast majority, of these people already resident in, and therefore familiar with, precisely those areas in which the crises would most seriously manifest themselves.
  5. Even in the event of an actual invasion of the United States, the Armed Forces would need support from the Militia. That support would be forthcoming, because one of the explicit constitutional responsibilities of the Militia is to “repel Invasions”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15. Moreover, that support would likely be necessary. For any initially successful invasion would involve hordes of enemy troops which would have to be fought with every tactic available, from direct counterattack at the invasion sites to guerrilla and partisan warfare throughout every part of the country into which the invaders penetrated—which types of warfare would require full and unstinting participation by the Militia.

To expect such a “Red Dawn” scenario always to be confined to movie theaters is naïve in an era in which America’s borders apparently cannot be made secure against even an invasion of illegal aliens composed almost exclusively of unarmed men, women, and children. (And, by revitalization of the Militia, even these now-porous borders could finally be sealed, without deployment of the Armed Forces.)

A final note of concern and caution. In the present state of political, economic, and social uncertainty and unrest throughout America, the Armed Forces will surely forfeit the confidence of every thinking citizen if, instead of supporting revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”, they attempt to impose “martial law” anywhere within this country when some major crisis breaks out (for which eventuality many observers believe they are training right now). For, by such behavior, they will prove “to a candid world”: (i) that they are politically unreliable “Standing Armies” with scant concern for the Constitution; and, worse yet, (ii) that they are willing to aid and abet America’s dysfunctional and disloyal political-cum-economic Establishment in “affect[ing] to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” throughout this land—even if that turns out to be part and parcel of the Establishment’s “design to reduce the[ People] under absolute Despotism”. Confidence so lost can never be regained. Once the Armed Forces have alienated themselves from the people, the full consequences of their breach of trust may be unpredictable. But they surely will prove to be undesirable in the extreme.

© 2015 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved






He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available 

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Memorial Day Dishonor and Disgrace



by Stephen Lendman













Study authors Margaret Harrell and Nancy Berglass said:













2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The Senate voted down a bill to renew the Patriot Act. The laws worst provisions will end on June 1.



5-23-2015 4-32-13 PM


Senate Votes Against Patriot Act Renewal!

5-23-2015 4-32-36 PM

Fellow Americans,

This is a major victory. Late last night, the Senate held two votes. The first was on the USA Freedom Act, a piece of legislation to “reform” the NSA’s data collection methods. In reality, the NSA would have been just as powerful and able to spy on Americans which is why Senators like Rand Paul rejected it.

The vote was 57-42, which fell three votes short of the 60-vote threshold to pass. The USA Freedom Act was rejected.

Then, not to be outdone, Mitch McConnell staged a vote for a clean renewal of the Patriot Act. Even though the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA’s data collection methods were illegal, Mitch McConnell wants to renew them.

The vote on the clean renewal was 45-54, missing the threshold by 15-votes. Another rejected attempt to renew the Patriot Act.

We did it!

Instead of keeping the Senate in session like he threatened to, Mitch McConnell conceded. Now, in all likelihood, the most atrocious parts of the Patriot Act will end!

But not so fast…

Senator McConnell has scheduled an emergency session for May 31, the day before these Patriot Act provisions expire. This is when he and the RINOs will stage their last stand.

Right now, it is important to thank all those who voted against infringing on Americans’ 4th Amendment rights. But with that said, we need to take this opportunity to remind Congress that when Leadership calls for another vote in the coming days, we expect for them to vote against this horrible legislation once again.

Make no mistake… Your activism made a difference here. All told, we sent 110,000 faxes to Congress on this issue.

Just as it is important to threaten our Congressmen and Senators when they stray from the path, it is equally important for us to thank them when they honor their oaths!

Tell Congress ‘Thank You’ for letting the PATRIOT Act die and restoring Americans’ 4th Amendment rights!

All the best,

Joe Otto

Conservative Daily

Tell Your Friends!

Copyright 2015 PoliZoo LLC, P.O. Box 1382, Parker, CO 80134. All rights reserved.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM