Dr. Farell Analyzes New Legislation Considered In Texas, Gold, Silver, Bretton Woods, Cashless Society & More

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
May 4, 2017

The state of Texas is joining other American states in considering legislation to recognize gold and silver coins as legitimate currency; while the revolt against the Fed is growing…there’s a problem… (copy and paste into your browser): http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texa…

The Free & Independent Individual

Imagination&Obstacles
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
April 27, 2017

“Now we have a whole army of experts, whose job is to tell you success only comes with you being part of a group. Your status as an individual is transmitted to you through some diabolical portion of your brain that is loaded with false messages. Therefore, give up on the greatest adventure in the world. Take the elevator down to the basement, get off, and join the crowd. That’s where the love is. That’s where your useless courage dissolves into sugar, and the chorus of complaints will be magically transformed into a paradise of the lowest common denominator. Give up the ghost. You’re home. The sun never rises or sets. Nothing changes. The same sameness rules.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

Since the 1960s, many people have decided that, in order to create the future they want, they should engage in a certain amount of introspection.

Spiritual or psychological introspection.

I have encountered a large number of such people, who have swung the balance to the point where introspection has become indecision and paralysis.

There are “so many issues to consider.”

Starting in the 1960s, we saw the import of various Eastern philosophies and practices. They arrived here in diluted and distorted forms. They introduced their own versions of “karma” and “balance” and “surrender” and “abdication to the wishes of the universe.”

“If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t meant to be.”

In the end, it amounts to waiting around in a cosmic station for a train that never arrives.

Or in psychological terms, it is: “I have to resolve my past before I can pursue my future.” “How can I know what I want if I’m trapped in past conflicts?”

The effect of all this was to diminish the potential realm of human action. It was a kind of court case where all the priors of the defendant were allowed into evidence and dominated the verdict.

More recently, another limiter came on to the scene. It is expressed this way: “Now I see through fake reality, I see how reality is being manipulated by the powers-that-be, so what can I do? We’re at the mercy of these forces.”

I could suggest that these vectors were and are an intentional operation, whose purpose is to demoralize the individual and cut him off from his own freedom, independence, and power. And that would be an accurate assessment. But it wouldn’t tell the whole story, for one vital reason:

The individual is the only person who can change his own course. Others can help, but the final decision is his.

That is bedrock.

And here is the superior principle: even if the individual determines that all is hopeless, he should launch his life anyway. Despite all the good reasons to give up, he should ignore all of them and launch his future.

Because if he does that, he soon begins to see his own view change. It’s not the same anymore.

And this is what freedom and independence and power are all about. Bottom line, these qualities are what you take hold of after you know all is hopeless. That’s the acid test.

Every individual, since the dawn of time, has thought himself into smaller and smaller boxes until there is no space left—and then certain individuals, who are spiritual and metaphysical riverboat gamblers, have shoved in all their chips on projecting action in the world anyway…and they revolutionize their destinies.

That’s what some people have called “inequality of outcome.” That’s the basis for it.

We can go even deeper. What is the ultimate purpose of thought and reflection and introspection? Is it to arrive at certain conclusions, after which the thinker (the person) serves those conclusions like a slave? Or is thought itself a process through which ideas then serve the individual and his goals?

It is the latter.

The first great philosopher of the West, Plato, followed the first path. Which is to say, he applied his mind to understand the basis of reality, and he came to the conclusion that there were immortal and pure Ideas that existed in a higher realm, and they were unchangeable. Society, therefore, could only triumph if certain wise men, who could apprehend these Ideas directly, ruled over everyone else. Thus, the freedom and independence and power of open inquiry led to totalitarianism. Freedom led to slavery.

The individual, when all is said and done, is his own ship. However much he may learn about navigation, there comes the moment when he and his ship leave the shore. He explores. He discovers. He invents.

He invents his own future. No matter what.

We would be fools if we didn’t realize that, down through human history, individuals have grasped, for themselves, all these points.

And when the American Republic was invented, these same points were “background.” What were the checks and balances and the separation of powers all about? What was the reason for the enumeration of federal powers and the granting of all other powers to the states and the people? Why was the federal government squeezed at its extremities? Because the free and independent individual was the true coin of the realm. He needed latitude. He needed legal protection, in the best way it could be provided, from arbitrary power.

Otherwise, why bother?

The Constitution was far more than an extension of independence from England. The men who wrote the Articles and the Bill of Rights, and the men who voted for them and ratified them—to now argue for or against their “deeper motives” is, in the end, a distraction from the fact that the Constitution contains ideas that aid the liberation of the free and independent individual.

The ideas still stand.

They are predicated on the notion that these individuals exist and will launch, despite all reasons not to, their own creative desires and make them fact in the world.

Give us your huddled masses yearning to be free. Masses? No. A mass can never be free. And even if a mass can successfully demand freedom, on whom does that bounty then fall? The individual. This is where the buck stops, and no one can change that truth.

There are those who believe a quiet lake is the end of all existence. And then a boat comes along, and the ripples begin spreading. An individual has arrived.

You can be the person looking at the lake, banking on no-action, or you can be in the boat, forwarding your best ideas and visions and dreams, despite all the reasons not to.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas BANS jurors from reading the U.S. Constitution

Image: Federal Courthouse in Las Vegas BANS jurors from reading the U.S. Constitution
Source: NaturalNews.com
Thomas Dishaw
March 27, 2017

The Bundy Ranch trials are underway, having begun in February of this year. There have already been reports that federal court Judge Gloria Navarro, who is presiding over the case, has dealt several blows to the defense teams throughout the trial. She has allegedly given the prosecution favorable treatment regarding time expansion, granting them over five weeks to present their case. She has, however, refused to do the same for the defense, allowing the six defendants only one week to present their case.

For the upcoming trial of Cliven Bundy, owner of the ranch at the center of the case, Navarro has also refused to allow nationally renowned lawyer Larry Klayman to defend Bundy, whose trial is set to begin in May. Klayman, who is the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for being steadfast in his litigation in support of mostly conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning issues. As reported by the Las Vegas Review Journal, Navarro said she would not allow Klayman into the high-profile criminal case until he can give her proof that “ethical disciplinary proceedings” against him in Washington, D.C., have been resolved in his favor.

Judge Navarro has now taken her detest for the defense even further and imposed a rule stating that no copies of the U.S. Constitution were allowed in this Federal Courtroom.

According to Redoubt News:

  • Witnesses have told me that the U.S. Marshals have decided that they will no longer allow copies of the U.S. Constitution to be brought into the courthouse. They have even gone so far as to remove them from ladies’ purses to be discarded into the trash. It is not limited to just those that are showing from shirt pockets.
  • Defendant Eric Parker, who has consistently placed a copy of the Constitution in his pocket during these proceedings, was forced to remove it and told to keep it flat at the defendant’s table so the jury could not see it.
  • The jury cannot be allowed to even look at the Constitution!

Eric Parker, known during the standoff as “The Man on the Bridge” or “The Bundy Ranch Sniper,” has been adamant that this case will set a precedent regarding government overreach and constitutional rights. During an interview with Early Rising, the married father of two said, “I believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I believe that those are natural rights, God-given; that the Constitution only reaffirms them. I believe that without defending them, they don’t truly exist.” Having a copy of The Constitution in his pocket during trial no doubt reinforces the virtues of liberty, limited government, and the Constitutionally protected rights that he believes in. Now that symbol is being taken away. (RELATED: Get more news like this at Liberty.news.)

The Bundy Ranch Standoff, or the “Battle of Bunker Hill,” was a six-day standoff between armed ranchers and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials in April 2014. Bundy, a cattle rancher, had refused to pay federal fees after he allowed his cows to graze on so-called public lands. He vehemently disagrees with federal authorities, arguing that the property is where his ancestors first settled in the 1880’s. In 1998, the BLM took Bundy to federal court, which ruled in favor of the BLM, and awarded them $1.2 million. Bundy has refused to pay the fees, and after years of failed negotiations, the BLM showed up to the ranch in an attempt to gather his cattle as payment for the outstanding fees. Bundy, with the help of several other supporters, including his sons, protested the takeover, which the prosecution has presented at trial to be an armed assault against the officers. During the event, the only person injured was one of Bundy’s sons, who was tasered by one of the officers.

A total of 19 people were arrested and jailed in connection with the standoff. Two pleaded guilty and accepted punishment for lesser charges while the remaining others, including Bundy and his sons, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, obstruction of justice, and several other charges. If convicted of all charges, each defendant could face up to 101 years in prison. Follow more news about outrageous government tyranny at Tyranny.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Guns.com

Eaglerising.com

Redoubtnews.com

Reviewjournal.com

RED ALERT: “And Then They Came For Me”

Source: SGTReport.com
February 23, 2017

It’s hard to overstate the pure evil and tyranny Google has engaged in by wiping NaturalNews.com off the internet. Not only has the attack on the free press and REAL NEWS been taken to the next level with this move, but this assault on FREE SPEECH will undoubtedly COST LIVES. The valuable catalog of information about health and wellness which Natural News provided, some 140,000 pages of articles and research have been scrubbed. As Mike Adams has said, this is a modern day book burning.

Special Solari Report – American Suicide: Proposals for Constitutional Amendments & Convention w/ Edwin Vieira, Jr.

[Editor’s Note]

Please follow the link bellow to Catherine Austin Fitts’ Solari website in order to listen to this phenomenal interview.


“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
~ US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7

Source: Solari.com
Catherine Austin Fitts
February 22, 2017

America’s sovereign finances have been operated outside the law for some time. Since fiscal 1998, the federal government has refused to publish audited financial statements and has reported over $11 trillion in undocumentable adjustments. Solari Report subscribers have heard for years about black budgets, hidden systems of finance, trillions in money going missing from the US government accounts, all constituting a “financial coup d’etat. Clearly, there have been significant violations of provisions in the US Constitution and law related to management of resources and assets.

You would expect that we would hear a growing chorus of both conservatives and progressives insisting that Congress comply with the law with respect to the management of our finances. Where is our money? Which mechanisms should we use to get it back? However, that has not happened. Instead, we see a push for Constitutional amendments and conventions.

This raises numerous questions.  If we are not going to enforce the Constitution, why the rush to change it? Why do so in a process that could be hijacked? If you look at the extraordinary sums of money, dirty tricks and covert operations used to push through tort reform, Common Core or mandated vaccines at the state level or destroy my community wizard software tool or other attempts to ensure proper accounts and reporting, the push to change the Constitution seems mighty suspicious.

Are the people who have shifted all the money out of government accounts hoping to make sure that the Constitution can not be used to enforce, even get the money back? What is the real agenda here?

To help me sort through these questions and dig into the very real risks, I asked attorney and Constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira to join me for a Special Solari Report on the current push to fiddle with the powerful covenant that protects us all. What does it mean to us and why should we make sure our Congressmen and state legislators are focused on enforcement of the Constitution, rather than changes?

If you don’t know about Edwin Viera, you should. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles at EdwinVieira.com and his books here, including my favorite, Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution. His lecture series on the problems facing our economy and security as well as legal remedies, The Purse and the Sword can be found here.

While many people are distracted by events in DC, a deeper game is afoot. Last year alone $6.5 trillion went missing from the federal government at the same time the push for a Constitutional Convention increased.  With the help of Dr. Vieira’s formidable experience and scholarship, I am sounding the alarm!

Read More At: Solari.com

Selling Food From Home Should Be Legal But It’s Not

organicchoice

Source: TheDailyBell.com
February 17, 2017

Make It Legal to Sell Home-Cooked Food … As food delivery becomes ever more popular in the U.S., some innovators have been looking to do for meals what Uber and Lyft have done for rides. Good cooks or even professional chefs working at home can produce tasty food for people nearby, income for themselves, and tax revenue for cities and states. Or they could if it were legal to sell home-cooked food. In most states, it’s not. – Bloomberg

Have you ever been sickened by home-cooking? We’ve had problems sometimes with food bought elsewhere but never with food that is prepared at home. Never that we can remember anyways.

We’d venture to say that food prepared at home is probably as safe or safer than any other food.

But that’s not what regulators think. For them, food cooked at home is subject to myriad difficulties and dangers.

Regulators have all but banned food cooked at home from being sold commercially.

More:

In some states, it’s simply illegal to sell most food that’s been prepared at home, no matter what technology is in the kitchen.

… Even if the risk from home-cooked food were as high as or higher than that from restaurant-cooked food, the danger would have to be extraordinarily great to justify a ban.

Some home-cooking startups have tried to get around the present ban by using shared cooking spaces that meet restaurant-grade safety standards. But food prepared in such kitchens may run afoul of other legal requirements.

The article gives examples of the many kind of requirements that confine food to the home. It goes over licenses an ice-cream maker might need. You have to get a license from the Department of Public Health to sell to consumers.

But if you want to sell directly to restaurants, you have to get a license from the Department of Agriculture & Markets’ Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services.

But this license doesn’t actually exist. You can sell to consumers directly but not indirectly to a restaurant. That’s just one example.

Old laws, the article says, were established for hub-and-spoke distribution. But now we want a more flexible market.

We tends to think this is not true entirely. We believe it is the Internet itself that is giving rise to discontent about what can be sold and from where.

It’s one reason top elites are so set on reconfiguring the Internet so that it avoids controversial topics.

We’ve been right about the Internet. The ‘Net began by suggesting certain changes and is now suggesting changes to almost everything.

Additionally, despite suggestions that parts of the Internet are run by the alt.right, many important and influential sites are still libertarian oriented. This is driving top elites nuts.

Their idea is to virtually ban all but properly approved concepts, but even if this ban goes into effect, it won’t last. Inventions like the Internet are not static and tend to be used, one way or another until their innovations have been exhausted. That could take a long time.

The article also states that, “To determine what safety requirements are most appropriate for home kitchens, states need to build on our existing knowledge about food safety — including data gathered by the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control — to put together a clear picture of the risks involved.”

No it doesn’t. The market simply needs to do away with this “knowledge about food safety.” Leave it up to individuals. That’s what is going on anyway. You’re simply punished after-the-fact for any kind of food poisoning.

And chances are there won’t be any. Do you get food poisoning from food you cook at home? If you are trying to build a business you are going to be pretty careful about what you give customers to eat.

Conclusion: It is the market itself that disciplines you and makes sure you provide what is timely and necessary. If you do not do not deal with food in this manner, you go out of business. Regulations have little or nothing to do with it.

Jefferson Was Correct

thomasjefferson
Source: TheRoadLessTraveled
January 29, 2016

In his last years – after a lifetime of learning and experience, Jefferson had one thing preeminently on his mind: the principle of decentralized government.

Rather than saying “centralization,” Jefferson used the word “consolidation,” but they mean the same thing. Here’s his core statement on the subject, from his autobiography, written in 1821:

It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

This statement put Jefferson at odds with the political leaders of his time and raised difficulties for him, as he writes in a letter to Judge William Johnson in 1823:

I have been blamed for saying, that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution.

For the following passage – a letter to William Johnson, written in 1822 – Jefferson’s words are set in italics and explanation/commentary in plain text:

They [a political party] rally to the point which they think next best, a consolidated government.

Here he points out that political parties tend to favor centralization, which they certainly have since.

Their aim is now, therefore, to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation.

This party is trying to steal the power of the individual States and centralize it in one city, and they are willing to alter or bypass the Constitution to do so. The fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth….

Here Jefferson is saying the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution could not prevent the theft of liberties by the national government.

I trust…that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation, as they have done against monarchism.

Notice his phrase, “the real Constitution.” Already in 1822, he needed to make this distinction, because the Constitution was already being twisted, overridden, and bypassed. Alternately, he may have been referring to the original Articles of Confederation.

In a letter to William T. Barry in 1822, Jefferson writes this:

The foundations are already deeply laid by their [the Supreme Court Justices’] decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.

Jefferson is likely referring to the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803, a decision that…

Continue Reading At: TheRoadLessTraveled