Category Archives: New World Order

One-world-government Walter Cronkite: ‘I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan’

The late CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite with the avuncular demeanor was called “the most trusted man in America”. He retired from anchoring the CBS Evening News in March 1981, succeeded by Dan “fake news” Rather.

Cronkite was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

On October 19, 1999, Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at a ceremony at the United Nations. In his speech, Cronkite declared his support and allegiance to a one-world government. He blamed the refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify one-world-government treaties on “a handful” of obdurate senators who “pander” to the Christian Coalition and the “religious right wing”.

Identifying Pat Robertson as the leader of the Christian Coalition, Cronkite quoted Robertson, that “any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the Devil.” Cronkite then mocked Robertson by declaring, “I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.”

Below are two videos of Cronkite’s remarks, followed by my transcription of his words.

Introduced by a speaker declaring that a one “world government is the structure necessary for global justice,” Cronkite said:

I’m in a position to speak my mind and, by god, I’m going to do it. (Audience laugh uproariously)

First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That’s going to be for many a bitter pill.

Today, we must develop federal structures on a global level to deal with world problems. We need a system of enforceable world law, a democratic federal world government. Most important, we should sign and ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court. That is now at the core of the world federalist movement’s drive. That court will enable the world to hold individuals accountable for their crimes against humanity.

And the third point: Just consider if you will, after 55 years, the possibility of a more representative and democratic system of decision-making at the UN. This should include both revision of the veto in the Security Council and adoption of a weighted voting system in the General Assembly.

Some of you may ask, although I think most of you know the answer, why the Senate is not ratifying these important treaties, and why the Congress is not even paying UN dues, even as with the American rejection, so many years now, the League of Nations after World War I.

Our failure to live up to our obligations to the United Nations is led by a handful of willful senators who choose to pursue their narrow, selfish political objectives at the cost of our nation’s conscience. They pander to and are supported by the Christian Coalition and the rest of the religious right wing. Their leader, Pat Robertson, has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government but only when the Messiah arrives. (Derisive laughs from the audience.) He (Robertson) wrote, “Any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil.”

Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan. (Audience applause)

Curiously, the version of Cronkite’s 1999 speech on the website of Renew America, an organization founded by Alan Keyes, leaves out Cronkite’s “right hand of Satan” declaration.

From LifeSiteNews:

[U]p until his death Cronkite served as honorary chair of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization dedicated to countering the influence of conservative Christianity on federal politics.  In 2007, the Alliance initiated a campaign to force Christianity out of the public sphere by promoting policies that would silence the Christian voice…[and the banning of] faith-based schools….

Part and parcel with Cronkite’s campaign against religion in public life was his outspoken vocal support of abortion and same-sex marriage.

Walter Cronkite died on July 17, 2009, ten years after his “I’m glad to sit at the right hand of Satan” speech. May he, like Saul Alinsky and Fidel Castro, be granted his wish.

H/t FOTM‘s greenworxx

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Democrats resort to secret informants against President Trump & SCOTUS nominee Judge Kavanaugh

A characteristic feature of totalitarian one-party dictatorships is the party’s use of a powerful tool against citizens — informants. The identities of the informants are secret; nor can the information they provide be verified or disputed.

The Soviet Union, East Germany, Maoist China all made use of secret informants against not just political dissidents, but any and every one. After the Berlin Wall separating West from East Germany came down in 1989, bringing to an end the communist East German regime, officers of the regime’s formidable Stasi secret police tried to destroy their files. But the files were saved by ordinary East German citizens who stormed the Stasi offices in Erfurt to protect the documents.

Beginning in 1992, the Stasi documents were made available to the general public who finally could view the hitherto-secret files on themselves. They were shocked to discover that colleagues, friends and family members had been secret informants. In total, the Stasi’s network of informants numbered one in every 90 East German citizens.

In July, the editorial board of America’s supposed premier newspaper The New York Times openly called on Democrats to go to war against President Trump by deploying mafia “Godfather” tactics. Recent events show that using secret informants is one of the tactics.

On Sept. 5, 2018, the despicable New York Times published an op/ed by an anonymous author who claims to be a senior official inside the Trump administration but part of the anti-Trump “Resistance”. The author claims not to be the only one — that “many of the senior officials” in the administration “are working diligently from within to frustrate” the President’s “agenda and his worst inclinations” in order “to preserve our democratic institutions”.

If you haven’t already read the op/ed, you can read it on Information Clearing House instead of on the click-baiting NYT.

Speculations are rife as to the identify of the anonymous author of the op/ed, the most credible and compelling of which is by former Assistant Secretary of the Reagan administration’s Treasury Department Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. A day after the publication of the NYT op/ed, Dr. Roberts posted an article on his blog stating that:

I know who wrote the anonymous “senior Trump official” op-ed in the New York Times. The New York Times wrote it.

The op-ed is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent.

The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.

Nine days after the publication of the NYT op/ed, it appears that this latest attempt by Demonrats to bring down President Trump has fizzled. And so Demonrats have deployed the Stasi secret-informant weapon against a new target — Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh’s nomination had been scheduled for a vote yesterday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the last minute, however, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, threw a wrench in the schedule by forwarding an anonymously-written letter to the Justice Department which accuses Judge Kavanaugh of unspecified “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students. Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which means the alleged sexual misconduct took place (if it did) at least 35 years ago.

Bob Fredericks reports for the New York Post, Sept. 13, 2018, that Feinstein  said the information came from a woman who wanted to remain anonymous, and declined to detail the letter’s contents — even to fellow Democrats.

Feinstein would only say this in a statement:

I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.

The information came in a letter that allegedly was first sent to the office of California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, who allegedly passed it along to Feinstein during the summer. It is unclear why Feinstein waited until now to pass the letter to the Justice Department.

The anonymous woman making the claims is being represented by Debra Katz, a lawyer who works with #MeToo “survivors”. Joseph Abboud, a lawyer at Katz’s firm, said the firm declines to comment.

The White House issued a furious response, pointing the finger at Sen. Chuck Schumer in a statement:

Senator Schumer promised to ‘oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have,’ and it appears he is delivering with this 11th hour attempt to delay his confirmation.

Throughout 25 years of public service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has thoroughly and repeatedly vetted Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 1993, for some of the most highly sensitive roles.

Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys’ Jesuit high school in Maryland. It is not known what school the anonymous letter writer attended.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office said the secret-informant letter would not throw a wrench into the confirmation process:

Sen Grassley is aware of Sen Feinstein’s referral. At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality. There’s no plan to change the [committee’s] consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

UPDATE #1:

Daily Wire just reported that the FBI has declined to investigate Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over allegations sent to them by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Take that, Feinstein!

Update #2:

A day after Dianne “my driver is a Chinese spy” Feinstein forwarded the anonymously-authored letter to the Justice Dept., 65 women who went to high school with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have written a letter to Dianne Feinstein and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, testifying to Judge Kavanaugh’s character. From their collective letter (Townhall):

We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect. We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time,” the letter states. “Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland. He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends. Almost all of us attended all girls high schools in the area. We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities. Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years.

Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day,” the letter continues. “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.

H/t FOTM reader EddieBG

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Red-Green axis is on fire in Connecticut.

 From trevorloudon.com, a graphic flier exposes the cozy relationship between Connecticut legislators and eight organizations that support extreme-left-wing and/or Islamic interests.

The organizations include:

  • Muslim Brotherhood (via CAIR and other organizations)
  • Communist Party USA
  • Democratic Socialists of America
  • Progressive Democrats of America
  • Alliance for Retired Americans
  • Council for a Livable World
  • AFSME, SEIU, AFL-CIO
  • Working Families Party

Legislators are listed with the committees they serve, so readers can understand the full gravity of the situation.

 Treacherous associations. The big shocker is that all of Connecticut’s finest collude with, promote or are supported by the Communist Party USA.

And all but one (Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro) is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Congressman Jim Himes gets the anti-trophy for his alliance with all of the organizations. All of the legislators are on good terms with at least five of them.

The back of the flier includes links to youtube videos and other sources. For instance, you can view Senator Richard Blumenthal speaking at a 2011 CAIR-CT banquet here.

In case someone doesn’t get the implications, the flier explains:

“The “Red-Green Axis” is the unholy alliance between Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy America. Both seek to destroy America’s government but for different reasons. Where the Muslim Brotherhood aims to institute an Islamic, Sharia-ruled government through “Civilization Jihad,” the Communists/Progressives/Socialists seek to establish a totalitarian, Marxist government.”

The flier also provides helpful educational links. Nice work!

~C.

(Flier posted with permission.)

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

George W. Bush’s love-fest with Michelle ‘Big Mike’ Obama

In July 2010, in an article in the American Spectator, “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution,” Boston University Professor Emeritus made the trenchant observation that the real divide in America is not so much between liberals and conservatives as between the bipartisan political ruling class vs. the American people.

Whereas the majority of the American people are religious (Christians) and patriotic, the bipartisan “regime class” — stripped of their lip-service rhetoric — are irreligious, arrogant and contemptuous of the American people, and love neither America nor her people.

Read an excerpt of Codevilla’s long article here.

We saw another display of that bipartisan ruling class at RINO Sen. John McCain’s funeral on September 1, when former president George W. Bush, 72, behaving like an impish schoolboy, snuck a piece of candy to a beaming Michelle “Big Mike” Obama, as their respective spouses, Barack and Laura, smiled indulgently.

Who knew that a funeral is an occasion for jovial frivolity?

Wes Walker of Clash Daily points out this isn’t the first time George W. was cozy with Big Mike:

(1) Big Mike hugs George W. during the inauguration of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, September 24, 2016:

(2) George W. kisses Big Mike, then the two hold hands and sing to one another at a memorial service for five slain police officers in Dallas, July 16, 2016:

And what was Big Mike doing with his hands in the laps of Barack and George W., as all three and Laura Bush grin as if they’re in on some private joke? What was so amusing at a memorial service for slain police officers?

Wes Walker observes:

Dubya must have finally paid off his Progressive Penance by opposing Trump’s nomination. Because it wasn’t so long ago that he was a racist, war criminal and literally Hitler.

For eight long years, the Obamas didn’t have a single nice thing to say about Bush. And now they’re best buds? He must not be the world’s most hated racist anymore.

Maybe it had something to do with Bush having joined the #Resistance.

George W.’s coziness with Michelle O. has not gone unnoticed.

Donald Francis Draper tweeted:

That tweet elicited these hilarious responses:

Michael L Arnold: “Bush gives Michelle a big boner”

Heather Terveld: “He likes men.”

NoMoreWhoresDC: “Broke Back Bush and the Tranny”

Ole George W. must have a thing for swinging nuts.

See also:

H/t Kelleigh

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Segregation by Censorship

In his recent FrontPage Mag article, “Fighting Political Segregation with a Digital First Amendment,” Daniel Greenfield argues in favor of passing legislation to protect free speech specifically on the Internet.

Using an argument that even a radical liberal could love, he compares the recent silencing of alternative and conservative opinions online to racial and economic segregation.

Greenfield is careful to point out that the Constitutional First Amendment is limited to protection against abuses by government, not private enterprises.

For this reason, he writes, “…when those enterprises have more power over speech than governments, when their scale is such that they can sweep away entire categories of ideas across the world with the press of a key, a digital First Amendment is needed to maintain the relevance of the Bill of Rights in a new technological era when government censorship is outsourced to corporate partners.”

You could, of course, point out that at this stage, governments are owned by the corporate partners they serve. And you’d be right.

Death, Incorporated. The Internet is a sprawling virtual continent that out-scales every country and corporate media monopoly on the planet in terms of influence and viewership. (Greenfield supports this with multiple statistics – just read the article.)

For the various behemoths currently profiting from this limitless opportunity to claim that they are “private companies” is like the bubonic plague calling itself a cold sore. Big tech can inflict a lot of death on a lot of opinions and facts with a few clicks.

Unforeseen consequences. Imagine yourself a citizen of such an unlikely place from the viewpoint of those who drafted the Constitution. They never foresaw it, but here you are.

You establish your virtual domain and quietly busy yourself furnishing it with windows and doors that open onto unique views. You furnish your domain with as many books and news sources as you can find on the subjects of your choosing and go to work drafting your own articles and essays, inviting comments from the outside world.

And suddenly, you have visitors: Messrs. Madison and Hamilton knock on your door with the intention of hearing what you have to say about something as arcane to them as the Internet: Crisis actors.

“What manner of masque or, to wit, black comedy are such actors engaged in?” asks Madison. Hamilton stands there with a puzzled expression.

Before you can answer, your windpipe is blocked by a sudden gust of ones and zeroes and you and your domain are sucked into the virtual back of the bus — to a dark outer dimension.

And you see at last what the Lords of the Internet intended for you all along: Disconnection. Isolation. Silence.

But as you blow away, you can see Madison and Hamilton down there shaking their capacious heads, wondering what the devil that was all about.

“It must be the return of ignorance and barbarism,” says Hamilton. “Witchcraft,” says Madison.

I agree with them, as I agree with Greenfield: What we need is a digital First Amendment to retain the relevance of the Bill of Rights.

Without it, everyone* will eventually be silenced.

~C.

*Even NPR, according to this article.

H/T: A Sweet Dose of Reality; Anne Berg

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Countdown

The week of August 12 was a countdown, though to what remains to be seen. I didn’t know it at first. Someone dear to me had died the week before, and I had miles to travel, tasks to finish and people to visit. It never occurred to me that the week following would bring more deaths.

The first happened on August 15th: the original FOTM blog was snuffed out by WordPress.

Then, from the same host, a series of kills: American Everyman, Jays Analysis, 50 Shades of Pissed Off, Fundamental Option, Chem Trails Planet, Government Rag, Dutch Sinse, together with my blog, Cinderella’s Broom. More small, independent blogs, I’m sure, were taken out, sites that shared a mission of exposing false flag operations and hoaxes, notably Sandy Hook.

A few days later, in response to my inquiry, a vaguely worded explanation arrived from WordPress, nearly identical to the one FOTM received:

The death notice was signed as shown:

Sal P.│Community Guardian │WordPress.com

In my case, there were two casualties: three-year-old Cinderella’s Broom and a much older WordPress blog, mixing personal and political topics, which I had voluntarily sealed, marked PRIVATE, with no admission granted without my approval.

Two down. By then it was obvious why WordPress had killed Cinderella’s Broom. It wasn’t because of policy violations (I had never breached the policy in force). It was because someone didn’t like the opinions being expressed and the facts being revealed.

The private blog was another matter. No one was allowed in. Why bother axing what amounted to a sealed coffin?

Two to go. Besides the two dead blogs, I had two others on my WordPress account, each of them artistic in nature without any reference to Sandy Hook, false flag ops or anything remotely political. But given what had happened to the sealed blog, I had to wonder which would be next.

I asked the vague “Sal P.” and got an answer from the phlegmatic “Knox,” who assured me that “transferring your domain to another host will not affect your other sites,” the reason being that, “they are not connected in any way to your domain.”

I wasn’t convinced. I knew I’d been foolish, putting all of my eggs in one basket. I wrote to “Knox,” asking about the private blog. “Did WP violate its own rules and allow others to view my blog who were NOT AUTHORIZED to do so? It’s a question I’m posing now and I’d like an answer.”

That sealed the coffin on the other two blogs. By that evening, I had my answer from the prickly “Fenton” (redaction is mine):

Our decision is final.

The site at ________.wordpress.com was not made open for public viewing. We are suspending your account, and as part of that all sites on your account.

Regards,

Fenton
Community Guardian
WordPress.com | Automattic

The next day, both of the artistic sites were tombstones.

It was obvious that policy violations were not the reason, and equally clear that content  wasn’t a factor in these two cases. The motive was one of the oldest in the homicide business: revenge.

It lives. WordPress, like other corporate-owned social media, was never a trustworthy platform for the truth. It was the siren calling out to survivors of the great deception, people willing to take a risk, swim out and grab hold of the rock. Then, when it had us sufficiently attached to its slippery surface, down it took us.

The trouble for the controllers of big-tech media is that too many of us had just enough time to stand up and shout. Inconvenient facts have been disclosed. The truth has been told, and the reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.

~C.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Chicago PD has a secret interrogation "black site"

Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:33:25 +0000   eowyn2

black site is a location at which a publicly unacknowledged black (or highly classified military/defense) project is conducted.

The term has gained notoriety in recent years in reference to secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), generally outside of U.S. territory and legal jurisdiction, which are used by the U.S. government in its War on Terror to detain alleged unlawful enemy combatants. The existence of CIA black sites or secret prisons was acknowledged by then-President George W. Bush in a speech on September 6, 2006.

Well, it turns out black sites are not just run by the CIA or outside of the United States, we have a black site right here in Chicago, Illinois, Obama’s hometown! But it took a foreign newspaper, the UK’s The Guardian, to discover that, not the august New York Times or Washington Post.

Chicago PD black site

Homan Square, the Chicago PD’s black site

On Feb. 24, 2015, The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman had an exclusive on the “equivalent of a CIA black site” operated by police in Chicago. Here are excerpts:

The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

Alleged police practices at Homan Square, according to those familiar with the facility who spoke out to the Guardian after its investigation into Chicago police abuse, include:

  • Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.
  • Beating by police, resulting in head wounds.
  • Shackling for prolonged periods.
  • Denying attorneys access to the “secure” facility.
  • Holding people without legal counsel for between 12 and 24 hours, including people as young as 15.

At least one man was found unresponsive in a Homan Square “interview room” and later pronounced dead. […]

The secretive warehouse is the latest example of Chicago police practices that echo the much-criticized detention abuses of the US war on terrorism. While those abuses impacted people overseas, Homan Square – said to house military-style vehicles, interrogation cells and even a cage – trains its focus on Americans, most often poor, black and brown.

Unlike a precinct, no one taken to Homan Square is said to be booked. Witnesses, suspects or other Chicagoans who end up inside do not appear to have a public, searchable record entered into a database indicating where they are, as happens when someone is booked at a precinct. Lawyers and relatives insist there is no way of finding their whereabouts. Those lawyers who have attempted to gain access to Homan Square are most often turned away, even as their clients remain in custody inside.

“It’s sort of an open secret among attorneys that regularly make police station visits, this place – if you can’t find a client in the system, odds are they’re there,” said Chicago lawyer Julia Bartmes.

Chicago civil-rights attorney Flint Taylor said Homan Square represented a routinization of a notorious practice in local police work that violates the fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution. “This Homan Square revelation seems to me to be an institutionalization of the practice that dates back more than 40 years,” Taylor said, “of violating a suspect or witness’ rights to a lawyer and not to be physically or otherwise coerced into giving a statement.”

Much remains hidden about Homan Square. The Chicago police department did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about the facility. But after the Guardian published this story, the department provided a statement insisting, without specifics, that there is nothing untoward taking place at what it called the “sensitive” location, home to undercover units. […]

A former Chicago police superintendent and a more recently retired detective, both of whom have been inside Homan Square in the last few years in a post-police capacity, said the police department did not operate out of the warehouse until the late 1990s.

But in detailing episodes involving their clients over the past several years, lawyers described mad scrambles that led to the closed doors of Homan Square, a place most had never heard of previously. The facility was even unknown to Rob Warden, the founder of Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, until the Guardian informed him of the allegations of clients who vanish into inherently coercive police custody.

[…] Chicago police guidelines appear to ban the sorts of practices […] lawyers said occur at Homan Square. A directive titled “Processing Persons Under Department Control” instructs that “investigation or interrogation of an arrestee will not delay the booking process,” and arrestees must be allowed “a reasonable number of telephone calls” to attorneys swiftly “after their arrival at the first place of custody.” Another directive, “Arrestee and In-Custody Communications,” says police supervisors must “allow visitation by attorneys.”

[…] Police often have off-site facilities to have private conversations with their informants. But a retired Washington DC homicide detective, James Trainum, could not think of another circumstance nationwide where police held people incommunicado for extended periods. “I’ve never known any kind of organized, secret place where they go and just hold somebody before booking for hours and hours and hours. That scares the hell out of me that that even exists or might exist,” said Trainum, who now studies national policing issues, to include interrogations, for the Innocence Project and the Constitution Project.

[…] Cook County, home of Chicago, has received some 1,700 pieces of military equipment from a much-criticized Pentagon program transferring military gear to local police. It includes a Humvee, according to a local ABC News report.

Tracy Siska, a criminologist and civil-rights activist with the Chicago Justice Project, said that Homan Square, as well as the unrelated case of ex-Guantánamo interrogator and retired Chicago detective Richard Zuley, showed the lines blurring between domestic law enforcement and overseas military operations. 

The real danger in allowing practices like Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib is the fact that they always creep into other aspects,” Siska said. “They creep into domestic law enforcement, either with weaponry like with the militarization of police, or interrogation practices. That’s how we ended up with a black site in Chicago.”

Writing for The Intercept, Feb. 26, 2015, Juan Thompson describes the experiences of two Chicago black site detainees.

Kory Wright

Kory Wright

Kory Wright, a Chicago resident and computer program analyst, claims that 9 years ago, he spent some 6 brutal hours at Homan Square, zip-tied to a bench in an intentionally overheated room without access to water, phone, or a restroom. He was never read his Miranda rights and his arrest was not put into the police system until after he gave false statements to try and end his ordeal.

Eventually, Wright was taken to Cook County jail, where he was processed and charged with distribution of heroin and cocaine. In the end, the drug charges against Wright were thrown out, though not before he’d spent six months under house arrest because his mother lacked the money to fund a bond for release.

Deandre Hutcherson, a friend of Wright’s swept up in the same police raid, described attacks to his face and genitals. Hutcherson was shackled to a bench and was being interrogated in another room. “He [a Chicago police officer] gets up, walking toward me,” Hutcherson alleges. “I already know what’s finna happen. I brace myself, and he hit me a little bit and then take his foot and stepped on my groin.” According to Hutcherson, the officer struck him two or three times in the face before kicking his penis. “You must think I’m a fucking idiot,” Hutcherson says his attacker told him. Within an hour, Hutcherson, who was in town for his mother’s funeral, faked an asthma attack that unnerved the police. He says they then released him from detention and sent him on his way.

The Chicago Police Department declined to address the specific allegations from Wright and his friend, providing only a general statement denying abuses at Homan Square. “CPD abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility,” the statement read. “There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square.”

Kory Wright was attending Wilbur Wright Community College, and taking criminal justice courses, when he was detained at Homan. He says he had hopes of becoming a police officer in the city of Chicago before that June day. His experience at Homan, and his subsequent arrest, caused him to miss a semester of school. Fortunately, Wright recovered, and today, at age 29, he is working on his master’s degree in network engineering at DePaul University. He lives in Bronzeville, a neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side, and is the father of a new baby girl. But the torture he says he suffered at Homan continues to haunt him. “The whole thing caused a rift between me and my mom. I didn’t like being black at all after that, and when I got to DePaul, I started trying to be as white as possible,” a doleful Wright told me. “Being black is a curse.”

Note: Kory Wright is now a programming analyst at Aon Hewitt. Here is his LinkedIn page. Send him a note of encouragement!

H/t Activist Post

~Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Supreme Court opens floodgates to voting by illegals

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/06/18/supreme-court-opens-the-floodgate-to-voting-by-illegals/  Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:45:22 +0000  eowyn2

Nearly everywhere else around the world, voters are required to show their ID when registering to vote. This is essential to the integrity of elections because without voter ID, the door is open for massive voter fraud.

But not in the United States of America where, on May 20, 1993, then President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka the Motor Voter Act) into law. Before that, the bill had been approved 259 vs. 160 by the House of Reps., and by the Senate 62 vs. 37.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections.  The form, which was developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant say, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. In other words, no proof of U.S. citizenship is required to vote long as you say you’re one.

Yesterday, in the case of Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of voting by non-citizens.

SCOTUS betrayersHeads circles in red are the 7 justices who ruled against requiring  proof of US citizenship to vote. L to r: Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Uncircled are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

As reported by David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2013:

The Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law [Proposition 200] Monday and by a surprisingly lopsided vote, ruling state officials may not demand a proof of citizenship from residents who register to vote.

The 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia [et tu, Scalia?] said this “proof of citizenship” requirement conflicts with the national Motor Voter Act. The measure said states must “accept and use” a simple registration form when filled out by residents who are registering to vote.

Scalia insists on closely following the words of the law, and in this instance, the words of the federal measure were clear in their meaning, he said. As written, the Motor Voter Act “forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruling was a very lopsided 7-2 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being the only two dissenters.

Justice Thomas writes, in his dissenting opinion:

(see Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., beginning p. 25):

“I do not agree, and I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the [Motor Voter or National Voter Registration] law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Cum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption. […]

Arizona has had a citizenship requirement for voting since it became a State in 1912. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. […]  In Arizona’s view, it “accepts and uses” the federal form in the same way that an airline “accepts and uses” electronic tickets but also requires an individual seeking to board a plane to demonstrate that he is the person named on the ticket. […]

The Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, provides that “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” in elections for the federal House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for direct election of Senators, contains an identical clause. That language is susceptible of only one interpretation: States have the authority “to control who may vote in congressional elections” so long as they do not “establish special  requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 864–865 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also The Federalist No. 57, p. 349 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J.  Madison) (“The electors . . . are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State”).  Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications, or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which are not at issue here. This power is instead expressly reposed in the States.

The history of the Voter Qualifications Clause’s enactment confirms this conclusion. The Framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress. Indeed, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323 (emphasis added).

Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the Framers’ design. […]

Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, §4, “to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States).

Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, §4, supports that position.”

Mike Adams of Natural News correctly calls the Supreme Court decision as “You need ID to buy beer, but not to register to vote,” and that the ruling “all but openly endorses widespread voter registration fraud” — fraud that already was pandemic in the 2012 election. He concludes:

“With these two plans — widespread voter fraud and the instant citizenship of 11 million undocumented immigrants — democrats may very well be able to continue to hold power in Washington as they drive America into complete financial bankruptcy. But they don’t care about the long-term impact of their actions. The only thing that matters to them is to stay in power and keep milking the system for as long as possible before total economic collapse arrives.”

Just remember as things get worse and worse in America, it was the Supreme Court, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Alito, who had helped make it all possible.

I weep for my country.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Trump has globalists in a panic: U2’s Bono says existence of UN, EU & NATO are threatened

If we go by international puppeteer Jacob Rothschild, the globalists’ dream of a one-world order would have been realized this year. (See “30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018“)

But “deplorable” Americans threw a wrench into their scheme by electing Donald Trump as President in 2016, and President Trump’s standing up for America’s national interests now has globalists in a panic.

Now, a prominent globalist activist, Irish rock star and U2 lead vocalist Bono (real name Paul Hewson), is sounding the alarm that the very existence of international bodies such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and World Trade Organization (WTO) is in peril.

Edith Lederer reports for the Associated Press that during an event on July 2, 2018, to launch Ireland’s candidacy for a seat on the UN’s powerful Security Council, Bono delivered a “sobering” speech to several hundred U.N. diplomats and staff, warning that the United Nations and other international institutions including the European Union and NATO are under threat, and urged nations to work together to ensure their continued existence.

While Bono didn’t name any countries responsible for threatening global institutions during these “troubled times,” his words appeared clearly aimed at U.S. President Donald Trump, who has criticized the EU and NATO. Bono cited Trump’s pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, and taking aim at the World Trade Organization with new U.S. tariffs.

You should know that this is the same Bono, 58, who is widely praised and lauded and given awards as a philanthropist, but whose anti-poverty ONE foundation gave only 1.2% of its funds to charity.

The Daily Mail reports on Sept. 23, 2010, that the non-profit ONE organization, co-founded by spokesman Bono in 2004, received almost £9.6 million ($12.58 million) in donations in 2008 but handed out only 1.2% of the donations (£118,000 or $154,620) to charity causes.

Instead, ONE spent more than 51% of it donations (£5.1 million or $6.68 million) on salaries to its staff of 120. ONE also funded high-profile, celebrity-supported events “to fight poverty in Africa and AIDS worldwide”. ONE said it took no money from the public and that most of its funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Writing in the New York Post, Paula Froelich calls Bono a hypocrite:

Over the years, it has often been shown that what Bono says and what he does are two different things. In 2007, U2 moved part of its multi-million dollar song catalogue from Ireland to Amsterdam just as their homeland ended a tax exemption on music royalties, to take advantage of the Netherlands’ low to non-existent tax rates for musicians.

Fine — except in the ensuing years Bono (and his charity One) earned kudos for insisting countries, corporations and people pay taxes in pursuit of a fairer society. In 2011, Bono, 57, who, according to CNN has an estimated net worth of $590 million, further angered his countrymen when he espoused the values of Ireland’s 12.5 percent corporate tax breaks. He went on the record to claim that these breaks for multi-billion dollar companies had brought Ireland the “only prosperity we’ve ever known.” He had a point, but as the locals noted, Bono wasn’t even giving the country a meager 12.5 percent any longer.

In defending his tax position, Bono told Sky News that just because he had campaigned for a fairer society did not mean he had to be “stupid” in business.

Then, in 2015, Bono’s One Campaign repeatedly called for more transparency on the ownership of “shell companies” and offshore trusts, decrying the effect of lost tax revenues on developing economies. A spokesperson for One said, “Anonymous shell companies and trusts [are] often being used to siphon much-needed funds out of developed and developing countries alike,” and claimed these companies cost the Third World the staggering sum of “a trillion dollars each year.”

So, last week, when it was revealed in a trove of leaked documents that Bono himself was a partner in one of these shady companies, the hypocrisy stank.

The so-called “Paradise Papers,” which belonged to an offshore tax haven, showed that Bono had formed a company with two Irish businessmen based in the low-tax island of Malta and bought part of a shopping mall in Lithuania, thus eluding the international taxmen….

Meanwhile, Bono repeatedly falls back on the work of One and his messianic campaign to save Africa as his failsafe excuse for any perceived bad behavior…. [But a] person who worked closely with One for years and has intimate knowledge of the organization told me that the charity is “strictly an advocacy group which tries to influence or shame African governments into behaving” and that not one dollar donated to One goes to real “boots on the ground” help….

All the while, he [Bono] is rewarded by a sycophantic media honoring his every utterance with a magazine cover or an accolade.

God bless our President Donald John Trump!

Please keep him in your prayers.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

30 years ago, Jacob Rothschild predicted a global currency by 2018

On March 6, 1991, in a speech to Congress then-President George H. W Bush famously and very prematurely declared the beginning of a “new world order” following the Gulf War — the U.S.-led expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait:

“Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order…. A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.”


Three years before in 1988, in an essay in The Economist (which is partly owned by the Rothschild family), Lord Jacob Rothschild, now 82, predicted that in 2018 the world would be united under a single currency, the phoenix.
Under the global monetary union, called the “phoenix zone,” administered by a global central bank, national economic boundaries would dissolve. “Tight constraints” would be imposed on national governments, and there would be no national monetary policy. In effect, nation-states would lose their economic sovereignty, supplanted by a global government — a new world order — in fact if not in name.

Thanks to The Free Thought Project, below is an excerpt from Jacob Rothschild’s article, “Ready for the Phoenix,” The Economist, January 9, 1988, pp. 9-10.

Ready for the Phoenix
Thirty years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.
At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.
The New World Economy
The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.…
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments.In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.…
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

Writing for The Free Thought Project, Jay Syrmopoulos points out:

[I]t must be noted that the creation of a global currency would give an inordinate amount of geopolitical capital to unelected international bankers, and subsequently take power away from the citizens of each nation and their respective governmental representatives….
Control over a nation’s money supply is, for all intents and purposes, the lifeblood of a state’s sovereignty – without this independence, the state only exists in name but is subservient to supranational powers whose interests lie outside of domestic and national political/economic concerns.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws,” said Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
Although the Rothschild family now generally keep a very low public profile, they still have significant business operations across a wide spectrum of sectors. While you may not find any one particular Rothschild on the Forbes’ most rich list, the family is estimated to control $1 trillion dollars in assets across the globe, thus having a strong voice across the geopolitical spectrum that many perceive as a hidden hand manipulating events silently from behind a veil of secrecy and silence.

Of course, since it is 2018, we now know that Jacob Rothschild’s prediction of 30 years ago did not come true, thanks to the Revolt of the Deplorables who, in 2016, elected a man named Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, whose campaign promise is to “make America great again” by putting America’s national interests first, which got him eternal enmity from the globalists.
Trump did exactly that in the just-concluded G-7 Summit in Toronto, Canada, in which he fought for fairer trade agreements for the United States, instead of continue the massive trade imbalances and deficits of previous U.S. presidents — to howls from our supposed French, German and Canadian “allies”.

See “Trump won’t endorse G7 statement,” New York Post, June 9, 2018.

God bless President Trump, the wrench in the Rothschilds’ and other globalists’ machinations for a one-world government!

See also:

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0