Sessions Reinstates Asset Forfeiture At Justice Department


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
July 27, 2017

This has been a tough week for blogs, because I’ve wanted to blog about many stories concerning space, some recent discoveries of gravitational anomalies in Weyl crystals or Weyl materials, and so on, but the cultural news has, again, taken precedence, because the assault on fundamental liberties continues. More recently, I’ve been complaining that the Republithug party has been – for a very long time – the party of “fake opposition” to progressivism and statism.

Well, once again, it has stepped forward, and proven me to be correct, as Attorney General Jess Sessions has decided it’s “ok” for assets to be seized, effectively nullifying at the federal level the efforts of states to curtail the practice, according to this article shared by Mr. M.D., and citing, let it be noted, a lamestream media report from See B.S. News:

Sessions reinstates asset forfeiture policy at Justice Department

Note the opening three paragraphs:

The Justice Department announced their plans to reinstate the use of asset forfeiture, especially for drug suspects — making it easier for local law enforcement to seize cash and property from crime suspects and reap the proceeds.

The practice has been criticized because it allows law enforcement to take possessions — such as cars and money — without indictments or evidence a crime has been committed.

“Civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement help defund organized crime, prevents new crime from committed and weakens the criminals and cartels,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Wednesday announcing the revived DOJ policy.

The problem, of course, is that one only has to be suspected of criminality, in order to lose all one’s assets. It’s a wonderful way to deal with potential political enemies: trump up a suspicion of criminal activity against an individual who is really a political enemy, and voila, problem solved.

And it has happened. There have been cases of Christian music groups touring the country whose assets, including some thousands of dollars of cash, were “forfeited” on the mere suspicion of criminal activity.

This can happen to you, to your children, to your friends, to me… to anyone deemed an enemy of the state. And don’t put it past the “authorities” to plant evidence in order to achieve it.

The problem, of course, is that it is wholly unconstitutional. When the oligarchs met in Philadelphia to give us the current American constitution, the anti-federalists insisted upon a Bill of Rights, sensing that without it, all the vehicles of repression were still in place. One of the articles – the sixth – of that Bill of Rights, clearly states:

Article the sixth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Asset forfeiture of course, by any normal person’s standards of language, customary usage, or understanding, an unreasonable search and seizure. Of course, there will be plenty of lawyers and so on to argue this case or that case, this precedent, or that precedent, to say otherwise, and that it is all “perfectly legal and constitutional.”

And that is America’s problem: the willingness to believe authority and clever sophistical arguments, over the clear – and regrettably unenforced – language and provisions of the Constitution. Does this mean the drug dealer gets to travel down the interstate free from unreasonable search and seizure? Yes it does, because that protects the freedom of all.

What is intriguing, however, is that the practice has been challenged by states:

CBS News’ Paula Reid reports that 24 states have passed laws limiting the practice, but local law enforcement can get around those restrictions by giving seized assets to the federal government instead of returning them to their owners. This practice is called “adoption” and it’s been used to seize almost $1 billion in assets over the last decade.

Think about that for a moment: twenty-four states, just one shy of half the states in the union.  What this means is that the federal government is now acting in opposition to almost half the state governments in the country, effectively nullifying their own wishes and their own attempt to curtail abuses, and those state governments have acted because their angry and frustrated citizenry have seen enough of the abuses of the federal Robespierres blathering about virtue and fighting crime and so on.  Robespierre, of course, had his own way of cutting away the difficulties of independently thinking people. Regrettably, the comparison becomes more and more apt, because the policies of the federal government more and more resemble those, not of constitutional government, but of a Committee of Public Safety, the wet dream of every progressive, and a National Convention issuing more and more assignats (federal reserve notes), while Europe looks on in disbelief at the growing instability of a neighbor…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

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

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

Big Government Police State: Florida residents being fined for growing vegetables on their own property

Vegetable gardens
Source: NaturalNews.com
Samantha Debbie
August 4, 2016

Florida may be known for its tropical climate and spicy Latin-American culture, but what it’s not known for is the freedom to garden. The southeastern state continues to make headlines over the state government’s contempt for front yard gardens.

Tom Carroll and Hermine Ricketts had been cultivating their garden for 17 years when their hometown, Miami Shores, passed a new ordinance restricting vegetable growing to the backyard. The couple begrudgingly dug up their lush garden in August 2013, after local officials threatened them with a daily fine of $50, according to reporting by Fox News.

Miami Shores fights longtime residents over front yard vegetable garden

The ordinance was a component of a new zoning plan adopted by the town, which has a population of about 10,500 people, and is located just north of Miami.

The South Florida couple sued over the garden ban, arguing that it was a violation of the state’s Constitution, because it included “improper limits on their private property rights and violation of the equal protection clause by singling out vegetables over other plants.”

The couple’s attorney argued at a hearing in June 2016 that barring them from growing vegetables anywhere on their property violated their Constitutional rights.

“We’re not saying you can do anything you want on your property,” attorney Ari Bargil told Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Monica Gordo. “We are simply saying you can grow vegetables on your property and that is protected by the Constitution.”

Growing vegetables is not a fundamental right, says community lawyer

Richard Sarafan, the attorney for Miami Shores, countered that the new zoning rule was not “irrational and treated all homeowners the same: their front yards should be covered with grass, sod or a ‘living ground cover’ not further defined. It’s no problem, he said, to have a vegetable garden in the backyard,” according to reports.

“There certainly is not fundamental right to grow vegetables in your front yard,” Sarafan said. “Aesthetics and uniformity are legitimate government purposes. Not every property can lawfully be used for every purpose.”

On Thursday, August 25, a Miami-Dade judge upheld the ruling, indefinitely banning front yard gardens. Circuit Judge Monica Gordo ruled that while she doesn’t understand the argument that front yard gardens destroy aesthetics in neighborhoods, the city nonetheless has the right to ban them, according to the Miami Herald.

Judge: City has ‘every right to decide front-yard veggies make a neighborhood ugly’

“Given the high degree of deference that must be given to a democratically elected governmental body … Miami Shores’ ban on vegetable gardens outside of the backyard passes constitutional scrutiny,” wrote Gordo.

The ruling is a big disappointment for the South Florida couple, who love to grow a variety of organic vegetables including okra, kale, lettuce, onions, spinach and several varieties of cabbage.

“I am disappointed by today’s ruling,” said Ricketts, whose legal battle with the city lasted three long years.

“My garden not only provided us with food, but it was also beautiful and added character to the community. I look forward to continuing this fight and ultimately winning so I can once again use my property productively instead of being forced to have a useless lawn.”

Meanwhile, the upscale community maintains its right to regulate the area’s aesthetic. Vegetables are fine as long as they’re out of sight, said the community’s attorney at a hearing in June.

A ‘blow to property rights’

The only recourse the couple has is to ask that the ordinance be revised or vote in new council members, said the judge.

“They can petition the Village Council to change the ordinance. They can also support candidates for the Council who agree with their view that the ordinance should be repealed,” wrote Gordo.

“If Hermine and Tom wanted to grow fruit or flowers or display pink flamingos, Miami Shores would have been completely fine with it,” said the couple’s lawyer, Ari Bargil, a representative from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm.

“They should be equally free to grow food for their own consumption, which they did for 17 years before the village forced them to uproot the very source of their sustenance.”

The firm called the ruling a “blow to property rights.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

MiamiHerald.com

OffTheGridNews.com

FoxNews.com

NaturalNews.com

More Conspiracy: Why Modern Mainstream Journalism Is Seen As Questionable

conspiracytheory
Source: TheDailyBell.com
August 26, 2016

A Short Checklist for Conspiracy Theorists … Unlike Wall Street, conspiracy theories are a perfect market, with supply and demand in perpetual equilibrium. This election year has seen soaring demand. –Bloomberg

Bloomberg has just posted an editorial debunking conspiracy theories, and the reason for it seems to involve people’s suspicion that Hillary Clinton has significant health problems.

Usually articles like this appear when certain elite dominant social themes are under attack. For instance: President Barack Obama was exposed in the alternative media for apparently not being born in the US. As a result, there was an increased mainstream attack on “conspiracy theorists.”

It was at this time, as we recall, that the labels “truther” and “birther” became increasingly popular. But as the attacks on Obama diminished, so did the use of these labels.

Now, it would seem, conspiracy-bashing may be elevated again.

More:

Like most conspiracy theories, [the attacks on Hillary’s health are] a mix of fantasy, improbability and willful stupidity. And, like others, it will no doubt prove tenacious.

If Clinton is elected president, some will swear the woman in the Oval Office is in fact an expertly rouged cadaver.

Countering conspiracy theories is hard, since facts trade at a discount among the conspiracy minded. But for those tempted to jump to conspiracy-tinged conclusions, perhaps a checklist would be a useful precaution ..

The article then goes on to list four such “theories”:

Ask why. Then ask why again.  Once is not enough: This theory suggests that the White House instructed the Internal Revenue Service to harass local Tea Party groups before Obama’s second term.  The rebuttal is that Obama has plenty of enemies. Why should he turn to the IRS alone to attack his critics?

When you say “rich and powerful,” which “rich and powerful” do you mean?  This is a broad theory that suggests rich and powerful people manipulate US society for personal gain en masse. The rebuttal is that there are many wealthy people in the US and not all of them seek the same things. The theory therefore fails on its face.  

Exactly how complicated is this anyway?  This is one of the older conspiracy theories suggesting that global warming must be true because so many people believe in it. The rebuttal, obviously, is that it is impossible to create a conspiracy involving so many people.

What’s Occam say about this? The “Occam’s razor” theory suggests simple analyses are better – and conspiracy theories often seem simple and powerful, even though they are not. The rebuttal is that the world is more complex than conspiracy theorists acknowledge.

The trouble with this editorial is twofold.

First, documents showing that  the CIA itself was instrumental in coming up with the conspiracy meme have been well reported. The CIA developed it in order to debunk accusations undermining the current US power structure and the preferred, elite narrative.

Second, basic elements of a certain kind of modern conspiracy theory are evidently true, confirmed both by historical evolution and factual evidence.

Back in February 2015, ZeroHedge posted an article about the CIA’s involvement in generating the “conspiracy theory” label (here):

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative … Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.  The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967 That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.

The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.  It states in part (bullet points, ours):

  • This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. ***   The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.  Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place.
  • Where discussion is active addresses are requested: To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.

The validity of conspiracy theory begins with central banking. It is easy enough to track the history of central banking and then to conclude that modern central banking gave a few people in London’s City the power to manipulate unfathomable assets to realize a specific agenda.

The goal – global governance – is simple enough to discover as well. It has been written about endlessly in various forms, often with good, footnoted support and historical evidence.

Conclusion: There is documented support regarding “conspiracy theory,” but this editorial leaves them out.  It’s one more example of why the accuracy of modern mainstream media is increasingly questioned and criticized.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

3 Bad Shooting Habits That Should Be Broken – TheFireArmGuy

Source: TheFireArmGuy
August 22, 2016

Here are three bad shooting habits that should be broken. They are basic concepts that mean a lot with shooting?

WEBSITE: http://www.thefirearmguy.com