Socialist Jews (Zionists) in History: Tricks and Treachery

I made this list initially to organize all those historically that were or are considered to be “socialist” Jews in an attempt to either expose or exonerate the Zionist movement. There are many Jews opposed to Zionism, so get the thought of anti-Semitism out of you mind. This isn’t about the Jewish culture or religion, it’s about Zionism and their use of democratic socialism to steal the wealth from the majority. Feel free to send additional known Zionists to this list by sending it in an email or comment, as it is much much longer than most realize. Just remember, it is important to associate them with either the known world’s Zionist organizations or the various democratic socialist political parties and movements they control, that plague our world. You will also find them as the heads of banks, major investment groups and corporations, such as Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla who is pushing to having everyone in the world vaxxed so he can make $billions for himself and his company of known liars and thieves. As an example, you’ll find a number of them in the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberger Group, or such as Klaus Schwab who heads the World Economic Forum. They’re everywhere in the various government bureaucracies, even the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, Bank of International Settlement and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development https://www.oecd.org Also remember, they now know a lot of people are on to the Tricks and Treachery, so it’s getting harder to prove those who are in the movement.

As an example, Henry Kissinger is or was in the Council on Foreign Relations (Zionist controlled) and he was caught saying in a cable released by Wikileaks “The illegal we do all the time, the Unconstitutional takes a bit longer”. Kissinger was and is a notorious war monger and was always stirring up conflict between nations. see his bio below. As you will see they strive to gain control of the various political organizations using democratic socialist polices to tax and redistribute the majorities wealth to their special interests such as many of the companies that make up the military industrial complex, so warfare is a major part of their agenda and they use all sorts of tricks and lies as the Pentagon Papers revealed to get countries into wars, so they can sell goods and services to the governments. That’s their Motus Operandi (MO) and just about everything out of the mouths is a lie to achieve this goal.

Here is the Wikipedia page on Zionism; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism Just remember with Wikipedia, the Zionist try to control content as they do in the corporate controlled media. I have found that although Wikipedia provides a lot of well know facts, you can surely observe their political leaning toward democratic socialism and abhorrence of libertarianism. There greatest fear is to lose control of the power to tax and redistribute the majority wealth to their special interests.   

This is strictly my definition of Zionism and if disagreement is met from it, then I do not mind amending it to clarify this issue. Zionists are those that believe they are God’s chosen people and as such are the rightful and legitimate political and economic rulers/leaders of the 230 +/- nation-states and other government organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, United Nations, etc. that make up earth. It is very important to note, that not all Jews believe in the Zionist movement but as I will show later, the Zionist movement is real and their members on accession have arrogantly disclosed the movements intentions.

Zionists use both political and economic power to prey on taxpayers, especially the civilian population. They are also promoting social policies like excessive taxation and regulatory fees, prohibitions on such things as recreational and medicinal herbs such as hemp, cocaine, opiates   and other recreational drugs, alcohol, exclusionary policies such as licensing laws and college accreditation,      

They appear to like the Roman republic model of governance with elected representation, knowing an ambitious politician is easily bought off and they can then use the tax money to manipulate the system.    

In the Magna Carta (1615) it was the following four (4) Clauses that first gave me the idea of taking note of their importance in the study of socio-economics. I knew they were monetarily influential, but I had no idea, how they had infiltrated the various government institutions, including the government controlled educations systems to enhance their agendas. We’ve caught those paying for their kids to be accepted into some of these colleges just recently, so god only knows just how many of them have monetarily manipulated they education system to get their degrees and other accreditations while denying others their degrees. As you will see, it just not coincidental that so many of them ended up pushing the democratic socialist agenda and sadly so many people have fallen for their trickery and treachery.

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

Then, when I learned about the City of London, I was amazed to find out that this City is the oldest City in all of the United Kingdom still in existence and many of the wealthier financial interest in the world just happen to have their businesses there. Must be just a coincidence?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

“The City of London, some suggest is the financial capital of the world and if it is, it may have been so, for many millenniums. The number of promenade banks and corporation headquarters or operating branches out of there is huge. As an example “N M Rothschild & Sons financial strength in the City of London became such that by 1825–26, the bank was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis. – Wikipedia.  The wealth may go back as far as the 8th to the 10th century as the Roman Republic declined and evacuated.  Other Jewish financiers like the BischoffsheimsGoldschmidts, Pereires, Seligmans, Lazards, and others, and these financiers by their integrity and financial skill obtained credit not alone with their Jewish confrères, but with the banking fraternity in general. By this means, Jewish financiers obtained an increasing share of international finance during the middle and last quarter of the 19th century. The head of the whole group was the Rothschild family…”

The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.” — M.L. Mencken

Ludwig Bamberger, (22 July 1823 – 14 March 1899) was a German economist, politician, revolutionary and writer. Bamberger was born into the wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish Bamberger family in Mainz. After studying at GiessenHeidelberg, and Göttingen, he became a lawyer. In the German Reichstag he was the leading authority on matters of finance and economics, as well as a clear and persuasive speaker, and it was chiefly owing to him that a gold currency was adopted and that the Reichsbank took form; in his later years he wrote and spoke strongly against bimetallism. He was the leader of the free traders, and after 1878 refused to follow Bismarck in his new policy of protection, state socialism and colonial development. On account of his opposition to Bismarck’s economic policy, he left the National Liberal Party and joined the “Secessionists” which later merged into the German Free-minded Party. He was also a founder of the Verein zur Förderung der Handelsfreiheit (Group for the Promotion of Free Trade). He founded the Bundesbank of Germany which was in the business of lending for trade and mercantilism.  

Daniel De Leon (/də ˈliːɒn/; December 14, 1852 – May 11, 1914) was an American socialist newspaper editorpoliticianMarxist theoretician, and trade union organizer. Daniel De Leon was born December 14, 1852 in Curaçao, the son of Salomon de Leon and Sarah Jesurun De Leon. His father was a surgeon in the Royal Netherlands Army and a colonial official. His family ancestry is believed to be Dutch Jewish of the Spanish and Portuguese community; “De León” is a Spanish surname, oftentimes toponymic, in which case it can possibly indicate a family’s geographic origin in the Medieval Kingdom of León. His father lived in the Netherlands before coming to Curaçao when receiving his commission in the military. Salomon De Leon died on January 18, 1865, when Daniel was twelve and was the first to be buried in the new Jewish cemetery.[2]

Paul Lafargue (in French lafaʁg/; 15 January 1842  – 25 November 1911) was a French revolutionary Marxist socialist journalist, literary critic, political writer and activist; he was Karl Marx‘s son-in-law having married his second daughter, Laura. His best known work is The Right To Be Lazy. Born in Cuba to French and Creole parents, Lafargue spent most of his life in France, with periods in England and Spain. At the age of 69, he and 66-year-old Laura died together by a suicide pact. Lafargue was born in Santiago de Cuba. His father was the owner of coffee plantations in Cuba, and the family’s wealth allowed Lafargue to study in Santiago and then in France. His four grandparents were a French Christian, an Indian from Jamaica, a Mulatto refugee from Haiti, and a French Jew. Lafargue has remarked that he was an “international[ist] of blood before [he] was one of ideology” and that “the blood of three oppressed races runs in my veins.

Fabio Grobart (also Antonio Blanco) was born in BiałystokPoland August 30, 1905; his birth name was Abraham Grobart a.k.a. Abraham Simjovitch. Apparently following orders of the Comintern, during the early 1920s he became a founding member of the Cuban Communist Party. After in 1922 entering the Young Communist League of Poland, and additional Communist activities he may have been sentenced to death and this may have obliged him to leave Poland to settle in Cuba.

He played an important, though generally undocumented, role in guiding the political leadership of Cuba’s 1959 Revolution along a socialist path. Fabio Grobart was one of the founders of the Communist Party in Cuba in 1925, “and for decades served as a party ideologue and the man who introduced Castro at party meetings” (Goering, 2001). Grobart was both a member of the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee and a member of Parliament. According to Boris Kozolchyk[1] Fabio Grobart was ethnically “Jewish,” and may not have been a practicing Jew. He apparently never objected to the Cuban government’s “attitude toward religion, Zionism and Israel… “.[12]

Harry Dexter White, former name was Weit (October 9, 1892 – August 16, 1948) was a senior U.S. Treasury department official. Working closely with the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., he helped set American financial policy toward the Allies of World War II while at the same time he passed numerous secrets to the Soviet Union, which was an American ally for part of the time and an adversary at other times.[1]

Harry Dexter White was born in Boston, Massachusetts, the seventh and youngest child of Jewish Lithuanian immigrants, Joseph Weit and Sarah Magilewski, who had settled in America in 1885. White admired the Soviet Union. Historian Sam Tanenhaus says he spied for them: White was accused in 1948 of spying for the Soviet Union, which he adamantly denied. Although he was never a Communist party member, his status as a Soviet informant was later confirmed by declassified FBI documents related to the interception and decoding of Soviet communications, known as the Venona Project.[2]  

So, we might want to ask ourselves if the FBI knew it, why wasn’t he prosecuted? He was literally a Jewish Spy for the Soviet Union and communist sympathizer.  He was also the senior American official at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference that established the postwar economic order. He dominated the conference and imposed his vision of post-war financial institutions over the objections of John Maynard Keynes, the British representative. At Bretton Woods, White was a major architect of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. J. Edgar Hoover was the Director of the FBI at that time.

Henry Morgenthau Jr. (/ˈmɔːrɡənθɔː/; May 11, 1891 – February 6, 1967) was the United States Secretary of the Treasury during most of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. He played a major role in designing and financing the New Deal. After 1937, while still in charge of the Treasury, he played the central role in financing United States participation in World War II.  Morgenthau was born into a prominent Jewish family in New York City, the son of Josephine (Sykes) and Henry Morgenthau Sr., a real estate mogul and diplomat. 

Morgenthau was a strict monetarist. President Roosevelt, Morgenthau, and Federal Reserve Chairman Marriner Stoddard Eccles jointly kept interest rates low during the depression to finance massive public spending, and then later to support rearmament, support for Britain, and U.S. participation in WW II.[9][10][11]

Eugene Isaac Meyer (October 31, 1875 – July 17, 1959) was an American financier, public official, and newspaper publisher. He published the Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, and the paper stayed in his family throughout the rest of the 20th century. He served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933 and was the first President of the World Bank Group. Born in Los Angeles, California, he was one of eight children of Harriet (née Newmark) and Marc Eugene Meyer. His parents were Alsatian Jews,[1] but he avoided identification as a Jew until later in life.[2][3]

Solomon Lazard, also known as S. Lazard, (1827–1916) was an entrepreneur in 19th century Los Angeles, California, a member of the city council there in 1854 and in 1861–62 and, some say,[1][2][3][4] the founder of the international banking firm Lazard Frères and Company. He and Eugene Isaac Meyer are cousins. Lazard arrived in the United States in 1844[8] or 1850[11] and became a U.S. citizen about 1853,[12] but In 1861 he visited France and was arrested on the charge that he still owed military duty to that country, where he had been born. He served six days in prison and then hired a substitute to take his place.[8]

Marcus Goldman (December 9, 1821 – July 20, 1904) was a German investment banker, businessman, and financier. He was born in TrappstadtBavaria and emigrated to the United States in 1848.[1] He was the founder of Goldman Sachs, which has since become one of the world’s largest investment banks.[2]

Marcus Goldman was born Mark Goldmann on December 9, 1821 in Trappstadt, Bavaria, Germany.[3][4] His father, Wolf Goldmann, was a farmer and cattle dealer.[3] His mother, Bella Katz Oberbrunner, who came from Zeil am Main, was widowed with five children from a former marriage; her first husband was called Samuel Oberbrunner.[3] His family was Ashkenazi Jewish. His paternal grandfather was called Jonathan Marx until he changed his name to Goldmann when Jews were allowed to have surnames in 1811. From his earliest days of his business, Goldman was able to singlehandedly transact as much as $5 million worth of commercial paper a year. Successful though he was, Goldman’s business was insignificant compared to that of the other Jewish-German bankers of the day. Concerns like J. & W. Seligman & Co., with working capital of $6 million in 1869 (equivalent of $113 million in 2018), were already modern-day investment bankers immersed in underwriting and trading railroad bonds. He started Goldman Sachs with his partner Joseph Sachs.

FYI: Ashkenazi Jews are a Jewish diaspora population who coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire around the end of the first millennium.[20]

Jacques Attali (French: [ʒak atali]; born 1 November 1943) is a French economic and social theorist, writer, political adviser and senior civil servant, who served as a counselor to President François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1991 and was the first head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1991-1993. In 1997, upon the request of education minister Claude Allègre, he proposed a reform of the higher education degrees system. In 2008-2010, he led the government committee on how to ignite the growth of the French economy, under President Nicolas Sarkozy. Attali was born in Algiers (Algeria), with his twin brother Bernard Attali, in a Jewish family

It is Attali that is said to have put Emmanuel Macron into the French Presidency despite his lack of political experience having never been elected to any office before. Macron was also an employee of David Rothschilds at his Bank in France. His wife who was his high school teacher taught at The Lycée Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague (“Franklin”), founded in 1894, is a highly selective Roman Catholic, Jesuit school in the 16th arrondissement of Paris. It is regarded the most prestigious French private school and has been ranked #1 lycée in France in the ranking of the newspaper Le Figaro.

Along with the Lazare investment bankers, with ties the Former President Ho

Léon Blum (April 9, 1872 , ParisMarch 30, 1950 , Jouy-en-Josas at Versailles ) was a French politician and journalist , as leader of the Popular Front he became France’s Prime Minister from 1936 to 1938 . He called himself a Marxist , rejecting Leninism. Blum thus became historically the first socialist and Jew to hold the post of Prime Minister of France.  After the assassination of Jean Jaures, he became general secretary of the French Section of the Workers International in 1916, and in 1921, after the division of the party into democratic-socialist and communist, he became chairman of the socialists.  After the occupation of France by Germany, he became a prisoner in the Buchenwald and Dachau concentration camps. After the war he announced his departure from French politics and concentrated on international issues. He publicly supported the establishment of the State of Israel and the UN. He died on 30 March 1950. 

Golda Meir[nb 1] (born Golda Mabovitch; May 3, 1898 – December 8, 1978) was an Israeli teacher, kibbutznikstateswomanpolitician and the fourth Prime Minister of Israel.

In 1913, Golda returned to North Division High, graduating in 1915. While there, she became an active member of Young Poale Zion, which later became Habonim, the Labor Zionist youth movement. She spoke at public meetings and embraced Socialist Zionism.[13]

Daniel Gilbert (born January 17, 1962) is an American billionaire businessman, investor, and philanthropist. He is the cofounder of Quicken Loans and founder of Rock Ventures.[3] He is the owner of the National Basketball Association‘s Cleveland Cavaliers. Gilbert was born to a Jewish[7][8][9] family in DetroitMichigan.[10] He grew up in Southfield, Michigan, where he attended Southfield-Lathrup High School.[11] He earned his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and the State Bar of Michigan.[5] While in college he earned a real estate agent‘s license[12] and while in law school, he worked part-time at his parents’ Century 21 Real Estate agency.

Quicken, which originated nearly $146 billion in mortgages in 2019, went public as Rocket Companies in August 2020 at a $36 billion valuation.

Leonid Nevzlin Israeli billionaire businessman, ranked 52nd in the ranking of 100 richest Israelis with a fortune of NIS 3.6 billion, owns the Haaretz newspaper and the monthly Liberal. Nevzlin made his fortune when he served as senior director of the Russian oil giant Yukos, headed by his friend Mikhail Khodorkovsky. He enjoyed handsome dividends, before retiring to public activity. He was elected president of the Zionist Congress, senator in the House of Representatives and served in a senior position at the Tass News Agency.

The Russian government seized Yukos assets and dismantled it. Khodrokovsky was charged with corruption and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, from which he was released about seven years ago. Nevzlin was charged with a felony of murder, fled Russia to Israel and in 2008 was sentenced to life in prison.

Nevzlin claims that these are false accusations and a show trial conducted for political reasons. The Supreme Court of Israel and the International Court of Justice in The Hague have ruled that Nevzlin is a political persecutor and can therefore enter any country in the world. Courts in Israel and Europe have rejected extradition requests filed by Russia following the conviction.

Russia, on the other hand, is ignoring court decisions in The Hague, which have accepted Yukos’ claim that Russia has illegally taken over the company’s assets and must pay the corporation’s shareholders and executives huge compensation worth $ 50 billion.

Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky (Russian: Михаил Борисович Ходорковский, IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈiɫ xədɐrˈkofskʲɪj]; born 26 June 1963) is an exiled Russian businessman, philanthropist and former oligarch,[2] now residing in London.[3] In 2003, Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia, with a fortune estimated to be worth $15 billion, and was ranked 16th on Forbes list of billionaires.[

On 23 December 2015, a Russian court issued an international arrest warrant for Khodorkovsky whom the Investigative Committee of Russia charged with ordering the murder of Vladimir Petukhov, the mayor of Nefteyugansk, who was murdered in June 1998.[110][111] Speaking on the same day on BBC, which claimed Khodorkovsky “spent much of his time in London”,[112] he said he was “definitely considering” applying for political asylum in the UK and felt safe in London.[113]

In December 2016, a court unfroze $100m of Khodorkovsky’s assets that had been held in Ireland.[15]

Khodorkovsky’s parents, Boris and Marina Khodorkovsky, were engineers at a factory making measuring instruments in Moscow.[citation needed] Khodorkovsky’s father was Jewish, and his mother was Russian Orthodox Christian.

In March 2014, Khodorkovsky was presented with the “Man of the Year” award by the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.[116] Khodorkovsky also delivered keynote speeches at the Le Monde Festival, the Freedom House Awards Dinner, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Oslo Freedom ForumForum 2000, the Vilnius ForumChatham House, the World Economic ForumStanford University, and the Atlantic Council.  These are all major organizations tied into the Zionist movement

Hans Joachim Morgenthau (February 17, 1904 – July 19, 1980) was one of the major twentieth-century figures in the study of international relations. Morgenthau’s works belong to the tradition of realism in international relations theory, and he is usually considered, along with George F. Kennan and Reinhold Niebuhr, one of the three leading American realists of the post-World War II period. Morgenthau made landmark contributions to international relations theory and the study of international law. His Politics Among Nations, first published in 1948, went through five editions during his lifetime.

Morgenthau was born in an Ashkenazi Jewish family in CoburgSaxe-Coburg and GothaGermany in 1904, and, after attending the Casimirianum, was educated at the universities of BerlinFrankfurt, and Munich, and pursued postdoctoral work at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in GenevaSwitzerland.

He taught and practiced law in Frankfurt before emigrating to the United States in 1937, after several interim years in Switzerland and Spain. One of his first jobs in the U.S. was teaching night school at Brooklyn College. From 1939 to 1943, Morgenthau taught in Kansas City and taught at Keneseth Israel Shalom Congregation there.[8] Morgenthau then was a professor at the University of Chicago until 1973, when he took a professorial chair at the City University of New York (CUNY).

Milton Joseph Rosenau (January 1, 1869 – April 9, 1946) was an American public health official and professor who was influential in the early twentieth century. Milton Joseph Rosenau was born in 1869 in PhiladelphiaPennsylvania,[2] to Nathan Rosenau and Mathilde Blitz, German Jewish emigrants. He started working for the government in 1989 until 1909 and then took a position at Harvard University where he established the Harvard and Massachusetts School of Health Officers. He was instrumental in guiding early vaccine and pasteurization policies.                   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_J._Rosenau

Myer Feldman, known as Mike Feldman (June 22, 1914 – March 1, 2007), was an American political aide in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Hailing from Philadelphia, Feldman was a trained lawyer and alumnus of the University of Pennsylvania, which he attended on a scholarship. He served in the Army Air Force during the Second World War prior to joining Kennedy’s campaign trail in 1957.[1][2]

Under Kennedy he was tasked with compiling negative information on Richard Nixon during Kennedy’s election campaign, as well as helping with speech writing and television interviews.[1][2] His files on Nixon became known collectively as the “Nixopedia”.[3] He also worked on agriculture issues and foreign relations on the subject of nuclear arms sales, often meeting secretly with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and Foreign Minister Golda Meir.[2] He was known for the rhyming couplets used when he and Theodore C. Sorensen, whom he succeeded as White House Counsel, traded memos.[1][2] In 1964 The New York Post called him “the White House’s anonymous man. “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myer_Feldman

Henry Alfred Kissinger KCMG (/ˈkɪsɪndʒər/;[2] German: [ˈkɪsɪŋɐ]; born Heinz Alfred Kissinger; May 27, 1923) is a German-born American politician, diplomat, and geopolitical consultant who served as United States Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.[3] A Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1938, he became National Security Advisor in 1969 and U.S. Secretary of State in 1973. For his actions negotiating a ceasefire in Vietnam, Kissinger received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize under controversial circumstances, with two members of the committee resigning in protest.[4]Henry Kissinger was born Heinz Alfred Kissinger on May 27, 1923 in Fürth, Bavaria to homemaker Paula (née Stern; 1901–1998, from Leutershausen), and Louis Kissinger (1887–1982), a schoolteacher. He had a younger brother, business manager Walter (1924–2021). His family was German Jewish.[11] The surname Kissinger was adopted in 1817 by his great-great-grandfather Meyer Löb, after the Bavarian spa town of Bad Kissingen.[12] In his youth, Kissinger enjoyed playing soccer. He played for the youth team of SpVgg Fürth, which was one of the nation’s best clubs at the time.[13]

Klaus Schwab has been married since 1971 to Schaffhauser Hilde Schwab. The couple live in Switzerland and have two adult children, Nicole Schwab, co-founder of the Gender Equality Project in 2009, and Olivier Schwab, who is married to a Chinese woman and heads the WEF office in Beijing.[17]In September 2019, the Federal President of Swiss ConfederationUeli Maurer, suggested to the Federal Council that Klaus Schwab, who has lived in Switzerland for 60 years, be granted Swiss citizenship and a Swiss passport, based on the cantonal citizenship law. Although Schwab has Swiss parents, the President of the Swiss Confederation Simonetta Sommaruga rejected the application. The Federal Office of Justice from the department of Karin Keller-Sutter (FDP) ultimately rejected the granting of citizenship.[17]

Schwab as publisher of the World Economic Forum’s 2010 “Global Redesign” report postulates that a globalized world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations (CSOs).[21] He argues that governments no longer are “the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage” and that “the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance”. The WEF’s vision includes a “public-private” UN, in which certain specialized agencies would operate under joint State and non-State governance systems.[22]

According to the Transnational Institute (TNI), the Forum is hence planning to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of “stakeholders” make decisions on behalf of the people.[23] The think tank summarises that we are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are “a silent global coup d’etat” to capture governance.[24]

Albert Bourla (Greek: Άλμπερτ Μπουρλά; born October 21, 1961) is a Greek-American veterinarian and the chairman and chief executive officer of Pfizer, an American pharmaceutical company. He joined the company in 1993 and has held several executive roles across Pfizer’s divisions. Prior to becoming chief executive officer, Bourla served as chief operating officer. Bourla was born and raised in Thessaloniki, Greece.[3] His parents, who were Sephardi Jews, were among the 2,000 of 50,000 Jews in Thessaloniki to survive the Holocaust; According to Bourla, his mother was allegedly minutes away from execution by firing squad when she was spared via a ransom paid to a Nazi Party official by her non-Jewish brother-in-law, while his father happened to be out of the Jewish ghetto when the residents were taken to the Auschwitz concentration camp and went into hiding, never to see his parents again.[4][5]

The Summary Of Four Socio-Economic Isms

By H. Skip Robinson © January 2021

Libertarianism can best be summed up as the legal inability of the bureaucracy and corporate powers to prey on the civilian population through taxation, regulations and fees, as legalized force and coercion are prohibited. All inalienable rights are equally protected by those within the entire population and equal justice under the law is best achieved as no privileges or preferences can be granted by the state to favor one individual over another individual or group. The system operates through voluntary associations and natural law via the non-aggression principle.

Socialism can best be summed up as the collusion of the bureaucracy and corporate powers attempts to take, through taxation, from the civilian population by giving some of that money they take, to those that vote for those politicians that are willing to tax the civilian population and redistribute their money to the bureaucracy and the wealthier special interests. Democracy and/or representative democracy are used to determine which inalienable rights are protected and which ones are usurped by the power structure. The system usually operates via a strong bureaucracy with the government-controlled courts using arbitrary determinations influenced by the various political ideologies with the most powerful political parties vying for power and control over taxation and the redistribution of wealth. Net Tax Recipients, those that get more money out of the public treasuries than they put in often vote against the Net Tax Payers, mostly those in the civilian population who put more money into the public treasuries than they take out.        

Fascism can best be summed up as the collusion of state and corporate powers, using force and coercion to prey on the civilian population via massive amounts of taxation and regulatory fees, using strong armed police powers. Most inalienable rights end up being usurped as more taxes and regulatory fees are needed and enacted to feed through various redistribution of wealth schemes the continuously growing power structure. The system also operates via a massive bureaucracy with the government-controlled courts using arbitrary determinations influenced by the various political ideologies and most powerful political party(ies).

Communism can best be summed up as the bureaucracy of the most powerful political party preying on the workforce using force and coercion, via regulations and mandates to pay those within the most powerful political party. Few alienable or property rights exist, as the state. i.e. the pubic good and general welfare are legislatively and judicially deemed to have greater legal standing and priority over the rights of the individual. This system usually operates by a highly centralized bureaucracy administered by a single extremely powerful political party, using strong-armed police and military powers. Individual rights are sacrificed for the alleged good of the majority.   

Are There Viable Solutions

How grand of them to give us back our right to use the herb cannabis, they usurped eighty years ago, on October 2, 1937, House Bill 6385: The Marihuana Tax Act. Yet a large group of politicians still voted against it. Only 5 Republicans voted for it and 6 Democrats voted against the bill to decriminalize a naturally occurring herb that people have utilized for thousands of years, coincidentally during a period when many Marxists were, just so happened to be, infiltrating our government. Sadly, some are saying, it is “unlikely” to pass the Senate.   

Think of our Constitution as our foundational rule of law, yet we have allowed it to be “unlawfully” abrogated to such a very high degree that many are making a strong case that we are no longer a lawfully constituted Republic. If true, is there a way to restore our society?

Are there viable solutions, has been the long-standing question and it appears playing in the arenas they control, the courts and legislatures, have been extremely futile. They surely are not going to ask somebody like me to be the Secretary of the Treasury, that’s reserved for the wealthy banking and investment interests. They obviously need the revenue or they wouldn’t be reinstating this right.

  1. Qualified Immunity is one of the major problems. Even when a government employee or official usurps somebody’s rights, they have commandeered the Courts and they most often eliminate any liability. Even Big Pharma is exempted from liability through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that has already paid out over $4.4 billion, so far, in claims. Most people don’t know about this, so they would not even know to make a claim.

The Constitution clearly states, that those that break their Oaths to support, protect and defend the Constitution, “shall Not Hold Office” and many in both major political Parties, more like gangs today, are complicit. Many people such as the group who voted against reinstating the above right, are actually complicit in destroying the very Constitution they have taken an oath to uphold. This is by definition an insurrection. When two or more people are involved in an insurrection, it is “treason”. We The People and our government have literally been overthrown from within, by the two most powerful political gangs and they are both highly violent and corrupt.

  1. The Constitution says they shall not hold office and,
  2. It says that any monetary claim to Congress to put down an insurrection, if successful, shall not be challenged.

So the provisions of restoring our constituted provisions are4 in the Constitution itself. We just need a large enough group to restore it.

In the below link, Andrew Colesanti, a founding member of the Counter-Insurgency Studies and Observation Group (COINSOG) makes the case that Biden and Harris by virtue of them campaigning to “legislatively” void the 2nd Amendment, for the right to bear arms, have thus broken their Oaths and thus should not have placed themselves on the ballot for the election. The Constitution gives us two lawful methods of amending the Constitution and both Biden and Harris have not advocated these methods and instead, have and are still attempted to unlawfully subvert the Constitution and its intent to protect the rights of the Citizens through unlawful legislative means. https://therightofchoice.wordpress.com/?p=158

Can you imagine a large group of COINSOG Citizens arresting Biden and Harris for insurrection and treason and putting them on trial? Right now, there are not enough members and obviously, security and privacy are of great importance to both the usurpers and we the people if we partake in such civil actions. Or we can maintain the status quo that appears to be taking us down a potentially violent path of incoherent civil unrest.

2. The Right of Choice; the website to the above link is about creating a substitute tax return that allows the individual taxpayers to choose which government programs they want or do not want to pay for with their taxes. With over 120 different taxes and regulatory fees, the government surely has plenty of discretionary money to pay for the less popular programs. If the IRS denies the use of the substitute returns, which is likely, the taxpayers, simply removes that section from their return and refiles it to meet their perceived income tax obligations. If they deny the substitute returns, this of course provides the Citizens a very interesting legal and constitutional challenge through the courts. The publicity alone would be worth the effort and a much easier sell to the average American to join in the movement. Seeing who pushes back and their arguments against such an initiative will surely be enlightening.   

CONTROLLED AND DIVIDED BY THE LIES OF THESE MEN

by H.SkipRobinson © 11/2019

There’s an old joke in politics, “how do you tell if a politician is lying? Their lips are moving. Sadly, the lies are often catastrophic for the majority and surely for the huge numbers of people affected by the social policies they put into place.

I am only going to go back, except for a couple of Presidents, for those in my life to show you how badly they lie and how badly they affect the majority.

Lyndon Baines Johnson; In 1964, two U.S. ships were “allegedly” attacked in Vietnam’s Gulf of Tonkin. President Lyndon B. Johnson got on the air that night to tell the American people about “the unprovoked attack and that he was orchestrating an aggressive response”. In reality, Johnson had already planned to attack North Vietnam. There was no unprovoked attack by the North Vietnamese. In 1965 he said, “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there”. The infamous Pentagon Paper leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the Washington Post, New York Times and other periodicals, revealed that both the President and high-ranking Military Officials at the Pentagon lied to the American people to justify escalating the war in Vietnam. The government tried to unsuccessfully prosecute Ellsberg for treason and unsuccessfully sued the Post and Times. Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War causing the death of some 58,209 American men and 2,489 are missing. However, even some of my father’s fellow Navy pilots from the 1950s when he flew, men in the late 40’s, were shot down and died in the Vietnam War; escalated on a lie by Lyndon Baines Johnson.  

Richard Nixon; He was a lawyer who campaigned for the White House promising to end the Vietnam War. It later emerged, however, that he had secretly tried to sabotage peace talks in order to improve his electoral chances. “You don’t know how to lie. If you can’t lie, you’ll never go anywhere.” – President Richard Nixon, giving advice to a political associate. I think that sums up the character of Richard Nixon. The infamous Watergate scandal, which forced him to resign before he was impeached was just another part of his corrupt and deceptive nature. Of course, his Republican predecessor Gerald Ford pardoned him from any criminal prosecutions. The military-industrial complex has been one of the major contributors to the campaigns of Presidential front runners throughout our history which is perhaps much of the underlying problem. It is as much a conflict of interest as there can ever be with government contractors able to, directly and indirectly, contribute to both candidates and the two major parties through the RNC and DNC.             

Ronald Reagan; “I’m going to Cut the Federal Budget”. He, of course, signed bills that raised the Federal Budget almost every single year during his two, four-year terms in office. This was an important time in our economic history. We could have and should have cut the Federal budget as he promised to do during his campaign and why he won the election. This would have allowed us to balance the budget and not go any further into debt. We are now $23 Trillion in just Federally-issued Debt and over 10% of our $4.2 trillion annual Federal budget today is just interest payments of $479 billion on that debt. Of course, Modern Monetary Theorists, (MMTs) believe erroneously that continually borrowing and printing more debt-based fiat currency is sustainable despite the lack of “any” historically evidence. Not one country in world history has been able to survive such poor monetary and fiscal policies.    

In 1985, Iran offered to free the several hostages they’d taken in exchange for missiles. “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we,” Ronald Reagan told the American people when suspicions started to rise. Though, a few months later, he admitted to doing just that: “A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not.”

It has always been the policy of the U.S. Government to “not” negotiate for the release of hostages which Jimmy Carter followed, very likely causing him the election against the self-admitted “liar” Ronald Reagan. 

William Jefferson Clinton; On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, “I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we’re going to make to have a short-term economic strategy.”

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, “From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. “I never did meet any voter who thought that.”

On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.”

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, “It’s a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses.”

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton’s budget wrote, “There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!”

“While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest.” (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)

In 1993, President Clinton ushered through Congress a large package of tax increases, which included the following:[2]

  • An increase in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.
  • Repeal of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.
  • A 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.
  • An increase in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.
  • A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.
  • Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.

As you can see these tax increases and phase-out and phase-down of allowable deductions did financially impact the middle-class wage earner, negatively. Clinton continued the tax on Social Security benefits to the elderly at a rate of 50%, which the Republican Ronald Reagan has first signed into law. The law is still in effect today negatively impacting middle and lower wage-earning seniors. I expect such actions from a Democrat but aren’t we told  Republicans like Reagan are fiscal conservatives. The idea of social security was to create a pension fund than they turn around an tax the benefits of the elderly 50% if you make more than a whopping $17,000 a year. It’s forcing especially the poorer seniors into poverty.        

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”The fact that it is against the law for members of Congress or the President to have sexual relations with interns should have provided him a little more impetuous for restraint. The fact that he then went on to say in defense of his actions, “having oral sex is not having sex.” just makes me think much less of Rhoads Scholars and attorneys. Getting caught with your pants down is one thing, lying and trying to weasel out of it is another.

The Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater, was a political controversy of the 1990s. It began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation. This failed business venture was incorporated in 1979 with the purpose of developing vacation properties on land along the White River near Flippin, Arkansas.

A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.

Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.

David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the Clintons’ partner in the Whitewater land deal.[3] The allegations were regarded as questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons.[4] A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton’s successor as governor, was convicted of fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter.[5] Susan McDougal served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to Whitewater.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton was ever prosecuted after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal. The matter was handled by the Whitewater Independent CounselKenneth Starr. The last of these inquiries came from the final Independent Counsel, Robert Ray (who replaced Starr) in 2000.[6] Susan McDougal was granted a pardon by President Clinton.

On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and his paying of a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association. In exchange, Kenneth Starr’s successor, Robert Ray, agreed to close the Whitewater probe, ending the threat of criminal liability for Mr. Clinton after he left office.

Bill Clinton lied on such important matters, it needs probably another page. Here’s one in line with the Ronald Reagans of cutting the budget. President Clinton said on March 23, 1993, at a press conference: “My economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years.”

Bill Clinton has been praised as the only President since Eisenhour to have balanced the Federal budget. However, it was not his policies but the policies of the previous Congress that caused the budget to be balanced for just really one year. They had previously decided to close a large number of military bases around the Country and sell most of the land and assets causing the increased revenue in conjunction with his tax increases. We really needed to cut the budget, like Ronald Reagan had promised and failed to do. Clinton added $1.396 trillion, a 32% increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

This is the Debt added to the deficit during the Clinton years: FY 2001 – $133 billion, FY 2000 – $18 billion, FY 1999 – $130 billion, FY 1998 – $113 billion, FY 1997 – $188 billion, FY 1996 – $251 billion, FY 1995 – $281 billion, FY 1994 – $281 billion.

Understand that we can still add debt through government borrowing and run a surplus on the books as Clinton did. The closing and sale of the military bases was a part of the surplus.        

George Herbert Walker Bush (Father); “read my lips no new taxes”.  is a phrase spoken by the then-presidential candidate at the 1988 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination on August 18. Written by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, the line was the most prominent sound bite from the speech. The pledge not to tax the American people further had been a consistent part of Bush’s 1988 election platform, and its prominent inclusion in his speech cemented it in the public consciousness. The impact of the election promise was considerable, and many supporters of Bush believe it helped Bush win the 1988 presidential election.

The line later hurt Bush politically. Although he did oppose the creation of new taxes as president, the Democratic-controlled Congress proposed increases of existing taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. Bush agreed to a compromise, which increased several existing taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement. This is one of the easiest lies to coverup. Promise something you know is unlikely to be passed because the other Party has control of either the House, the Senate or both. This is classic campaign rhetoric 101.

In the 1992 presidential election campaignPat Buchanan repeatedly cited the pledge as an example of a broken promise in his unsuccessful challenge to Bush in the Republican primaries. In the general election, However Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, running as a moderate, also cited the quotation and questioned Bush’s trustworthiness. Bush lost his bid for re-election to Clinton, prompting many to suggest his failure to keep the pledge as a reason for his defeat.

George W. Bush (son); “We have discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Of course, when the US Military invaded Iraq, they found nothing but some old saran and mustard gas which incidentally the U.S. has sold them years before. But we already knew that. Our own U.S. weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for years and had found nothing either. G.W. Bush and company thus relied on false intel provided by a known con man and foreign as a provocation to go to war with Iraq. Remember Lyndon Johnson.  

I’m only going to give you the lies of a couple of pre-WWII Presidents to show that this is nothing new. As Nixon alluded to, lying is a necessity in politics if you want to get elected.     

William McKinley; told another war-causing lie. He told Congress that Spain blew up the U.S.S. Maine in Cuba, which started the Spanish-American War of 1898. However, thanks to an investigation in 1976, it was discovered that Spain, in fact, did not blow up the U.S.S. Maine. A fire on the ship reached the boat’s ammunition stock and caused an explosion.

James K. Polk; was the 11th president of the United States, and he set his sights on expanding America’s territories. Specifically, he had his eye on California and New Mexico — Mexican territories at the time. When Mexico wouldn’t agree to sell him the territories, Polk sent troops “into Texas to cross the Nueces and guard the Rio Grande.” Mexico, of course, fired at the troops in response. Polk went to Congress and told them Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.” So began the Mexican-American War

Donald Trump; “I love Wikileaks” and “Don’t you love Wikileaks” were one of his favorite campaign slogans, every time to huge applause before being elected. A sealed indictment by the Trump Administration against Julian Assange was “accidentally” unsealed in another unrelated lawsuit. Since Assange, Edward Snowden and Bradley now Chelsea Manning’s incarcerations and/or necessity to seek political asylum in other countries, whistleblowing has come to a severe halt, unless protected by the RNC or DNC for political purposes.

Barrack Obama; partially won the Nobel Peace Prize for his participation in passing the Whistleblowers Protection Act, campaigned on open and transparent government and partially because he promised to stop the American participation in various wars around the world. Of course, he tried to prosecute more whistleblowers than any President in history. Now the Deep State, politicians and military-industrial complex can go about their corrupt work deceiving and ripping off the American people without fear of someone blowing the whistle on them. And of course, the wars still rage on, despite Trump also during his campaign, promising to bring the Troops home. Are you starting to notice a pattern?

As President Barack Obama entered office after campaigning on greater transparency, he promised, on his first day in the White House, to launch “a new era of open government.” Of course, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and most likely others, would begin to conducting government business on private email servers “to be more transparent”? 

As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs: Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists, threatened to jail an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a journalist investigating private defense contractors became the focus of federal prosecution and was initially charged for sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already been made public.

Those Espionage Act cases included the trial of Chelsea Manning, who was held in solitary confinement for nearly one year prior to her military trial, prompting a condemnation from the UN special rapporteur on torture. “The absolute twisted passion with which the administration under Obama’s leadership has pursued whistleblowers is just appalling,” says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and co-founder of RootsAction.org. “And as far as I can tell, the administration is unrepentant in that process. There’s just no other administration that comes close.”

Journalists’ concerns about their threatened rights became such a hot-button issue that Obama’s first US Attorney General Eric Holder had to publicly affirm that they would be spared from the confines of a metal cell under his watch. “As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail,” Holder said.

The frequency of Espionage Act cases under Obama has earned him the reputation of waging a “war on whistleblowers.” New York Times reporter James Risen has called Obama “the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.” Damning words, indeed.

In 2015, the United States was about to drop out of the top 50 countries in the Reporter Without Borders’ annual press freedom index, sliding 29 spots since 2009 when Obama took office. In the international watchdog organization’s report, RWB cited the ongoing conflict with whistleblowers for the decline. The United States regained eight spots in 2016, but the home of the Bill of Rights finds itself in the same company as the nations, Burkina Faso and Botswana, and Slovenia—where, RWB notes, “anyone who feels offended or insulted by a newspaper article can demand the publication of a ‘correction’ in the same position in the newspaper.”

And last but not least, the Donald

Donald Trump; He has said so many lies, it’s really hard to know where to start. So, let’s start where Obama left off, with the prosecution of whistleblowers and one of Trump’s famous campaign slogans “I love Wikileaks” and “Don’t you just love Wikileaks” to huge ovations every time he said them. Wikileaks, of course, is headed by the now world-famous Julian Assange held captive, more like a hostage in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London before the U.S. made a deal with the newly elected President of Ecuador to kick Assange, out even those he was there under political asylum. This is where the deep state gets involved with the manipulation of other governments and their heads of state. We back monetarily using taxpayer dollars, those people who are willing to do what the deep state asks, completely outside the purview of the rule of law. Our Constitution does not authorize our government to interfere in the political affairs of other governments, yet this has been the status quo for decades and Trump has no intention of stopping it. It’s his Administration that had Assange arrested by the British and now in Prison. A U.S.  Arrest Warrant for Assange was accidentally unsealed in an unrelated court case, so Trump is following in Obama’s footsteps by continuing to suppress whistleblowers and the free press, whatever little there is out there, mostly alternative media sources with limited or no funding big business.

The New Your Times which is obviously a promoter of democratic socialism, did an interesting story on the Trumps lies so far. It’s obviously biased but some of it is sadly true. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html Here, however, is a sample of the authors at the New York Times lying. They wrote that Trump said “on “ JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” There are always illegal votes found but the New York Times wrote: (There’s no evidence of illegal voting.) However, I found another New York Times article that contradicts their own authors, on the Trump Lies Story. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/ This article said Trump Didn’t lie in this particular case.

So let’s see if we can find a lie in the above 1st New York Times hit piece because we know for sure we cannot trust this newspaper. One of the stories has to be false. FEB. 28 “We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials.” The NYT is correct (They can’t lobby their former agency but can still become lobbyists.) Sadly, Trump has hired many people in his Cabinet that have been in the government bureaucracy for years. He is not draining the Swamp nor is his ban effective at stopping the individual from working with others to lobby their former agency, they just can’t do it directly themselves so it’s unenforceable. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/a-staggering-number-of-lobbyists-have-worked-in-the-trump-administration/  He is even hiring lobbyists himself.

Restraining the Size and Scope of Political power

Apparently, it is impossible to place mortal humans in positions of political power by any means, election, appointment or by their own overt actions that can effectively vote themselves the ability to restrain their own powers and influences. It may be a slow expansion of powers but none the less in total a significant one.

In 8,000 years of recorded history, do we know of any culture that has been able to place enough people with integrity into positions of political power that have successfully protected the inalienable rights and property of their fellow Citizens?

Representative government is, thus far, an elusion that has always placed money and power ahead of the majorities best interest. How quickly a portion of the electorate will attempt to overthrow the majority once they realize they can indirectly vote themselves greater benefits through their representatives, at the expense of their own Citizens, often determines the long term economic fate of their society.

It appears to me we have reached this phase in U.S. history. As many countries have found, it is easy to destroy free-market capitalism with enough taxation, regulation, and bureaucracy. It however thus far alludes us in finding a better replacement.

Do You believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)?

For those that have never heard of it, you’ll see later why it’s “not” something the two major political parties and mainstream media want us to talk about or discuss its merits.   

The NAP, as it is often referred to, is a philosophical legal concept which precludes individuals from harming other individuals or their justly acquired property, with the exception of protecting themselves and/or others and their justly acquired property from someone else who is breaking the NAP.  Simply, you’re not supposed to harm others or their property and if you do, they have the legal right of self-defense to stop you.

This is actually the underlying basis of most modern-day legal systems in our world. So of course, you believe in it, right?  Most laws are based on this ethical principle of not harming one another called “mala in se” laws and when people do break one of the laws we classify them as a criminal.    

From Wikipedia: Malum in se (plural Mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited by political mandate.   

A judicial citation: An innately immoral act, regardless of whether it is forbidden by law. Examples include adultery, theft, and murder. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

Now here is the problem or really a dilemma with the NAP.  It doesn’t necessarily apply to those individuals who represent and/or work for the nation-state, i.e. the government.  The nation-state can simply enact mala in se and mala prohibitum laws and use force and coercion to enforce them.  All your drug laws, vices such as prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, DUI, licensure laws such as driver and real estate licensing, permits, income taxes, public education, property taxes, etc. are all laws that break the NAP. They must use the force of coercion to enforce them or the Citizens would simply ignore them. Of course, the government will fine or incarcerate those that break the various laws, hence the use of force or coercion as the physical means of enforcement.  I think it is pretty evident that everyone agrees that malum in se laws should be rigorously enforced but malum prohibitum laws is where the debates and differences of opinion really become apparent. 

Their enforcement requires the use of force or coercion by those in the nation-state to carry out the politically derived mandates. They must physical steal or coerce people into giving them the money it requires to fulfil the governments social policies.  

It’s not OK for an individual to break the NAP, but those who form the largest or most powerful political party and their employees can and do. I’m not here to try to determine right and wrong at this point or what laws we should or shouldn’t have, I’m here is help people understand the principle and how it affects our lives. Later I share what a few of our founding fathers said.   

Every tax, fine or regulatory fee is a breach of the NAP because it takes money or property from those who justly earned it and thus it “Rightfully” belongs to and gives it those that didn’t justly earn it and thus it does NOT rightfully belong to. This is the ethical foundation of our “Inalienable Rights” and why the Citizens required a Bill of Rights be created before they would ratify the U.S. Constitution.  These rights were specifically to stop those in government from taking the Citizens money and enacting malum prohibitum laws. 

Of course, those in government have twisted the very words in the Bill of Rights and Constitution where today government just about goes unstrained in both size and scope of powers. Instead of check and balances between the three branches, they are either rubber-stamping one another’s decisions and actions or suing one another when they breach or overstep their constitutionally mandated scope of powers. The various branches of our government and those individuals in the bureaucracy are in constant legal battles. The Federal government alone cost taxpayers over $4 trillion “annually” and requires over 110 different taxes and regulatory fees to pay for it all. 

To give you an idea of what our founding fathers set out to establish with our founding documents, all one must do is to read a few of the quotes of the first three Presidents.  

Thomas Jefferson, the Third President “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.

George Washington, the First President “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

John Adams, the Second President “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.

One of the most important rights is that of “property” protected by our Constitution as well as the NAP.   How have we gone from a society set up to protect our property and money from being confiscated by criminals and the government, to one where the government is now the greatest confiscator? The greater questions are 1. can government be restrained from confiscating to much of the majority’s wealth and if so 2. how do we do it when it starts to cause such great problems for the majority and our society as a whole?

The Importance of the Treasury Yield Curve

During the latter part of 2018 the Treasury yield curve started to invert as economists call it. The shorter term maturities, 1 month (1M), 3 month (3M), and 1 year (1Y) yields were all higher than the 2Y, 3Y, 4Y, 5Y, 7Y and 10Y Treasury yields. Only the 20Y and 30Y maturities remain higher. As you can see, with the two prior years, the yields of the various maturities were normal in that the short term Treasury yields were lower then the longer term Treasury yields, which is the way they should be in a good and/or normal market.

So what is the significance and importance of the partial inversion of the Treasury yield curve? 1. It means the Federal Government is having to pay more interest to investors who buy the Treasuries that fund the $1 trillion+ annual deficits the U.S. is now consistently having to borrow to fund our government. 2. Historically, in every single occasion this has occurred, the U.S. was soon in a recession. Today now only is the U.S. economy slowing, so is most of the rest of the world, according to numerous indicators and high profile sources.

It is important to understand, that the debts of both the private and public sector are much higher today indicating that the recesssion will most likely be deeper or longer than the great recession of 2008, potentially even another great Depression.

Equality and Equal Justice Under the Law

Men don’t treat women as equals and women don’t treat men as equals because we’re not.  If two male engineers are not equal in their abilities and motivations, neither are any two women. Whether right or wrong, men and women discriminate against one another and women in various situations even discriminate against other women. Why because we’re different. Scientifically there are at least 50 differences between men and women and a lot of it is genetic. We know the obvious ones. Women can multitask, take fewer risks, verbally communicate better and are often more focused than men and men are generally physically stronger, take more risks and can create and build just about anything. We’ve developed defined roles between men and women but that’s where our differences often create conflict, especially in leadership roles. Of course, everyone wants to be the boss because they generally make more money, have more power and control and are granted more privileges and accolades. You are not likely to see a woman beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf and you are not likely to ever find many men who can care for a young child like a woman can. Women like pictures of kitty cats and babies of every species and men like trucks and weapons. These are the roles we have been forced to take, in part, by nature itself.

We surely do not like to see the repressive discrimination and sexual predation by either gender. Women use their sexuality if they can to manipulate their world just like men use their money and strengths. I think it’s the unethical practices by both genders that is most disheartening. Men using their money and power to manipulate women and women using their sexuality or psychological manipulations such as making false accusations against men they are trying to harm socially or in their relationships. We all know how unethical both genders can be so let’s stop pretending there are saints among us. 

I often write that humans are not as ethical as our rule of law requires and until we can improve upon both our institutions and integrity, I’m afraid our human weaknesses seem to have causes perhaps even a digression in our evolution. It appears as if we are stuck on a plateau with some points in time better than others and some worse. We made a huge leap in the development of mankind late in the 1700s when we overthrew the Monarchs of Europe and much of the world and abolished slavery within 75 years later, both of which had been going on for millenniums.

Can we really say or prove that suffrage or any of the other political mandates after that have made our world better since the abolition of slavery?  Scientists have now proven that we are an oligarchy, providing the evidence our experiment as a democratic republic, which Benjamin Franklin questioned upon its ratification, has failed. The majority have little or no influence over the social policies being created and we are being ruled over by a relatively small group of people; that’s what an oligarchy is.

Yes, the power, controls and unethical activities within our society are subtle but increasingly blatant as the oligarchy keeps gaining more and more powerful. Sadly, the majority is stuck in the middle of two dominant warring factions fighting over political power and money. Suggesting that if either of these two factions prevails the world will be better off, is logically weak if not totally false. The problem is systemic. An oligarchy cannot possibly take us to the next level in any progressive evolutionary manner. How is it that a Constitution and Bill of Rights created to restrain the size and scope of government has failed and provided just the opposite? We can of course experiment with a direct democracy but the working mechanisms and problematic issues of that are perhaps even more difficult to overcome. I do not want my neighbor to be able to vote against my liberties any more than I do of elected representatives.

History tells us that our world progressed the most when governments had the least power and after the defeat of the European Monarchs and our founding fathers tried to politically institutionalize our newfound liberties with a Constitution and Bill of Rights as did many societies around the world.  It hasn’t worked very well though. The governments today are equally as powerful, with many of the same systemic problems the monarchies offered. We’re very close in many situations, considering the diminished individual liberties, as those defeated by our revolutionary forefathers, but it has been very subtle and took almost our entire history to come full circle; dominated by an oligarchy but now tiered even higher with international organizations such as the World Bank, INF and United Nations giving military and financial support to the many oligarchies ruling our world.

The English Tories were the primary adversaries of the founding fathers. Those entrenched in the political, religious and commercial interests of the church and crown. We thankfully eliminated the religious persecution by protecting religious liberties with the 1st Amendment. What we have failed to protect, are the economic liberties. As the government has gotten more powerful, so has the required revenue increased through a plethora of taxes and regulatory fees. We may have religious liberty, but the State (now an oligarchy) has taken all our economic liberties. Those who are well off, as were the Tories of old, under our current system vote for its maintenance, stifling any major changes as those who are not well off, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.

If the 1st Great Revolutions failed to protect the individual liberties essential to the majorities prosperity, another revolution will over time result in the same losses of liberty and resultant problems. Another revolution is obviously not the solution until such time as we can come up with a superior way in which to protect our economic liberties. Does anyone with a brain really want to try socialism with eventual communism again? Look at all the problems all the social policies enacted just over the last 100+ years have caused. Right now, millions of people cannot earn enough money to even feed themselves and thus require government assistance. Our economic system is badly broken, and it is simply because we have allowed the government to tax our incomes, property, sale of goods and services, exports and a plethora of over 110 different taxes and regulatory schemes.

It’s a systemic problem; it’s the system itself. We need to create a system that truly protects the individual’s rights to property and our earnings. Who is going to build the roads? If the rights to property and income are protected from taxation the oligarchs will be forced to pay for them if they want us to travel to their businesses and to buy the good and services, they produce. Taxation is truly the power to destroy and it is destroying the middle class. So how do you force the oligarchs, those in power to pay for anything? They are greedy and they are going to pay for whatever it takes, including any infrastructure, to be able to get you to buy the goods and services they produce. There is more than enough money in society to pay for those things that are beneficial and necessary for the majority to prosper. If you take money and property from those that cannot afford it, it takes away their ability to survive. The oligarchs dangle the proverbial carrot in front of the majorities noses to motivate them, why not dangle the carrots in front of their noses. History tells us that when taxes were low or non-existent, the wealthy did, in fact, build much of the infrastructure of their day. Just think with all the technologies today, what could be, if the government did not tax and misallocate so much of our financial and material resources. So, I don’t want or really even care about equality. I know that there are going to be people who do better and worse in life than I do. I just want equal justice under the law and my rights to my justly earned property protected. If we kill this systemic problem, perhaps other systemic problems will also be alleviated. Power has the ability to corrupt and political power is the worst, because it is not earned; it is most often achieved by force, coercion, cronyism or fraud.

With Justice for None; the four henchmen

@ H. Skip Robinson 04/01/2019

It is not hard to acknowledge that when Judges are chosen politically, the Judges will become as much a politician as those selecting them.  The confirmation hearings of Judges have become a political battle so adverse and contentious, that they are partially being fought through the legal system itself.

Of course, this is the worst thing that could ever occur in any society, but it has been the rule throughout human history. The Judges have always been a rubber stamp for the ruling class and the various factions want their candidate to be the one confirmed.  The should give you an indication of just how arbitrary judicial decisions have been and can be.  

“With Justice for None” is also the title of a book by the best-selling author and prominent defence Attorney Gerry Spence, now deceased, who wrote a highly critical review of our legal system.  

“A scathing indictment of how law is taught, practiced, and administered in this country . . . One of the best books ever written on the law.”—The Denver Post
 
“Renowned trial lawyer Gerry Spence takes an in-depth look at the American justice system and reveals a terrible truth: If you don’t have power or money, then you likely won’t receive justice either. The wealthy buy their way out of trouble, while the poor are punished. In an effort to combat this corruption, the author devises a number of reforms, tackling issues in every area of the system from law school to the courtroom.”

This is the truth about our legal system, and I have read and heard hundreds of stories over the years providing additional evidence. If you have the money to pay the extravagant prices the average Attorneys charges, and many of them are “poor to average” at best in their abilities to acquire justice, you will get better treatment that those that don’t have the money. Many of them are highly unscrupulous and will take your money and then do hardly anything to help you. And God forbid, having to use a Public Defender who is an indirect drain on the pension funds of the Judges and other government employees that work the justice system, I call Courthouse Vultures.   

IMHO, with the States and American BAR Associations, they have created a quasi power cartel full of individuals with highly questionable integrity. In 1820, Thomas Jefferson apparently agreed when he wrote; “The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric.… the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advance it’s noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one…. when all government….in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

Our Judiciary, has allowed, until just this week of 3/15/2019 the “extraordinary” excessive confiscation of money and property through unconstitutional Asset Forfeiture actions protected by the 8Th Amendment to be standard operations by local, state and Federal Law enforcement agencies. Finally, after decades perhaps even a century or so, of unlawful confiscations of property and money from the Citizens by government prosecutors and law enforcement, the Supreme Count finally has upheld and protected one of out constitutional rights, in a case Timbs v Indiana after the appellate determination by the Indiana Supreme Court, affirmed an action so unconscionable that it boggles the imagination.

We all know our political system is inherently flawed because of the effects of money on the system but unless you follow some of the lower and Supreme Court decisions carefully you are not necessarily cognizant of the Courts poor behavior.

I think they got Roe vs Wade right and many others but when it comes to the governments taxing and other confiscatory powers to fine, penalize and imprison, it is as if it is a profitable business to them.

I’ll give you one example. During the foreclosure epidemic, the South Florida Courts literally became a purely arbitrary system with a “rocket docket” mentality as it was being called by Attorneys, forgoing most of the rules of law and this was a determination from the top down, with the Senior Judges telling their subordinates to clear their docket, ruling against the homeowners almost 100% of the time. Come to find out the Judges have their own pension fund and they had invested in some of the mortgage loans sold be Wall Street and the banks.

Despite the various frauds initiated by the banks and mortgage lenders, homeowners lost their homes almost 100% of the time unless the banks made some sort of deal with the homeowners.  Here in So. Florida we still have huge numbers of foreclosures still on the dockets and it is often the banks themselves slowing the process. As a Realtor, I think they are trying to slowly bring these properties on the market so that the keep the inventories low and prices remain high but that’s another issue for another day. 

The rocket docket mentality still exists as far as the Judges siding with the banks, but the legal processes have normalized. If you think justice is being served, it is not. We even have found family members of the Judges being owners of banks or major shareholders. 

In the State of Florida, a jury trial is prohibited for foreclosure proceeding by Florida Statute allowing only the Judges to reside, called a Judicial Hearing over the determination of the cases. How can this even be constitutional? 

What is amazing is that Thomas Jefferson warned us about this so many years ago. He stated: “The opinion which gives to the Judges the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a Despotic branch.  The new Constitution has secured these (individual rights) in the Executive and Legislative departments; but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say by jury.” Understand that he was writing about the jury being the final arbiter at the Appellate levels just as it is most often at the Circuit Court level. 

In one case We The People v. United States, 485 F.3D 140 (2007), one Judge made the initial decision in the lawsuit to deny the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under the 1st Amendment, a group of 62 questions relating to the Federal individual Income Tax, the U.S. Government would not answer.  A three Judge panel, including the now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh upheld the usurpation and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case. https://openjurist.org/485/f3d/140/we-the-people-foundation-inc-v-united-states So, we had in this case, just “four” people determining if Citizens have the Right to petition the Government for Redress of Grievances under the 1st Amendment and expect honest answers to those questions.  Siding with Kavanaugh was Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Chief Justice and District of Columbia Circuit Court Justice, Judith W. Rogers. The initial Judge in the lawsuit at the DC Circuit was Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. I call them the four henchmen for usurping one of the most necessary rights of all. Our founding fathers petitioned King George as well and with the same results.

The proverbial question is why have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances, if the Government doesn’t have to honestly respond to questions pertaining especially to the tax laws of our nation? If they cannot answer such questions, how are they able to assess and enforce them?  

It was the single most influential action taken by those in the U.S. Government that made me come to the very sad but honest realization, as those from Princeton University and other academics have concluded. That we are an oligarchy and not a democratic republic any more, quashing the entire notion of any possibility of representative democracy under our current leadership and system. IMHO, it is the judiciary that provides the legal precedence that has slowly allowed the expanded size and scope of powers beyond the constitutional limitations set force in our rules of law.  There are legal and proper ways to amend our Constitution, yet the judiciary has ignored them on many occasions, legislating from the Bench as each political Party contends the other is doing. In all three of the above situations noted above, it was the Judiciary single handedly that was the final arbiter fostering the usurpation of rights protected by the Bill of Rights.           

Here are the 62 Questions posed in the formal petition for redress of grievances under the 1st Amendment presented to the IRS Department of the Treasury, The President of the United States and all 535 members of Congress. https://jurists4justice.com/essays/62-questions-the-irs-government-refuses-to-answer/

It simply comes down to just nine people determining the laws for a nation of 325 million people; two much power in the hands of too few individuals. With the negation of the right to petition for redress of grievances, they have now blocked all of the Citizens ability of any method(s) of direct oversight over those in judicial power, as Thomas Jefferson warned so very long ago.  You can vote your little hearts out and it will have little bearing, these justices are nominated and confirmed by the most politically powerful in our system.  The President and 100 Senators now decide our judicial fate.

Then we wonder why the Government has grown from having just one tax, a luxury import tax, to taxing everyone and everything we do with Gestapo like tactics, WWII Germany would be proud of. Total government spending at all levels is now at $7.4 trillion “annually” and we must borrow $1 trillion of that annually, now placing every household in debt to the turn of about $175,000.00 with a total of just the Federal Government debt now surpassing $22 trillion.

We are literally indebting the future generations beyond their potential of paying it back without debasing our currency even more.  Inflation has only been curbed by the poor economic conditions felt by everyone but the wealthy who appear to be oblivious to the effects placed on the middle to lower socio-economic spectrum.                                              

Paul Krugman is Wrong, Again

As first a Democrat and then a Republican, it wasn’t until the late 1980s that I ran into libertarians. I kept debating them and finally succumbed to the logical economics they knew and understood. Yes, it’s both complicated and takes some time to learn but boy, it then becomes an eye opener and everything you thought you knew is then easy to recognize as truth or fallacy.

I have found the lack of economic education to be a fundamental problem facing our world. However, the really hard part is to overcome the false narratives of the ruling oligarchy and their lackeys like Krugman. We have long known Krugman to be an economist who supports the faux Marxist agenda and despite our showing his erroneous arguments time and time again, he still gets the headline attention in the New York Times and other major mainstream media outfits. You don’t think this by coincidence, do you? It’s all about redistributing the majorities money through taxation to the wealthy special interests