DHS preparing to hack the vote, Russians only a cover?

In the upcoming second debate, Hildabeast will point to the claim by her friends in the F.B.I. that the Russians are trying to hack the vote this November and Jeh Johnson’s power grab in telling states to get help from the governing  ruling class to “protect” the vote.

This is an obvious attempt to set us up for their plans of last resort to nullify a Trump victory. Maybe they’ll “find” fraudulent counts that they themselves hacked into the country.

This from the same crowd that does not like requiring identification to vote.

Worst case is a quick Supreme Court ruling that the vote in swing states is null and void. This would extend the Obama runaway presidency, a bonus to them. That would enrage Trump supporters. Next who knows? Maybe states seceding finally, calling out their state national guard to defend the state. Obama requesting the U. N. to send help.

Meantime, Assad eliminates ISIS  with  Russian help. And Bible prophecies begin to  coalesce.

More likely is that they would simply hack the vote for Hildabeast. I think Trumpers would protest vigorously, but how that ends is hard to control. They like to rig the results, they’re not used to unpredictability.

But the ruling class also have their gullible followers and mercenary trolls and paid demonstrators, jerked around by planted agents provocateurs.

Advertisement

Reason: Obama is obviously a warmongering president

About Steve Chapman, writer of record of this article at Reason Magazine:
Hillary’s Appetite for War

The author says “The president himself is partly to blame” for getting Democrat Party members and followers and the public “inured” to war. Hey guys, he is to blame for jumping in with both feet. President Truman hung out a sign on his desk: “The buck stops here”. The expression, for you younger guys, means he’s the boss and takes the blame for his underlings.

Obama loves to blame the “top one percent” for everything their companies do, why soft-pedal this thing with him. What, he listens to his Secretary of State and former rival for top dog, and his coterie of adviser women, and he has no blame for anything?

And then this “Reason” author says something that in this real world sounds irrational:

“Obama has also refused to be panicked into reckless military action against Syria”.

BALONEY.

Americans were tired of war, and even when they tried the false flag operation of getting the Syrian “rebels” to use chemical weapons against civilians while blaming it on Syria, in one marvelous demonstration of the importance of an independent free-for-all Internet, it took one lonely unsung European reporter to blow the whistle on them.

(By the way, the U. S. has stockpiles of those weapons, and used a banned chemical warfare weapon against its own civilians at Waco, Texas. That “tear gas” was a chemical used in Vietnam to kill the Vietcong in their tunnels.)

In other words, Obama either approved the operation or post-facto nodded at it.

OBAMA IS ALL IN AGAINST ASSAD AND HELPING SYRIAN REBELS AND ISIS INCLUDED

Everybody who isn’t head-stuck in the sand knows by now that D.C. is pouring aid into Saudi Arabia as back-channel help for the “rebels” in Syria. Almost everybody should know by now –if you’re paying attention– that Saudi Arabia is pouring rivers of financing and arms to ISIS. On occasion the war hawks talk about using the Middle East allies more, but they don’t say too much.

Now we find out that Obama has deliberately ordered the troops to let ISIS sell their oil.

Somebody reading this is rolling their eyes because they believe government media (PBS, NPR, CNN, FNC,FBN, CNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, etc). He just announced in a big news story that they dropped leaflets warning oil truck drivers to get out of the way, for around 100 of them waiting at the ISIS oil docks.

The Pentagon has been watching they said, over a THOUSAND of these trucks filling up and they have not bombed them.

Obama is waging a PRETEND war against ISIS. Obama is all in for helping al Qaeda and ISIS overthrow Assad in Syria. Obama saw nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton’s helping al Qaeda get rid of Gaddafi.

Gaddafi had become one of the best allies against al Qaeda in the Middle East. He turned over their bad guys and he gave up his nuclear program. That’s why he was confused about the West attacking him so hard.

What about the propaganda against him that claimed he was attacking civilians? My question is, why did the media go along with that propaganda without mentioning that the Libyan “rebels” were doing much worse? Where is the story that exposes the lie that said all the blacks defending Gaddafi were “mercenaries”, when in fact they were the people who were treated well in Gaddafi’s Libya and that knew the Yankee-supported NATO-armed “rebels” were fatally dangerous to them?

Why did nobody ask why the Obama-Clinton regime was supporting rebels that committed much worse atrocities against civilians? If getting rid of monsters is the goal, why aren’t they attacking the worst of them?

“Massacre of Blacks in Libya By NATO-backed Rebels Continues as World Watches”:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/massacre-of-blacks-in-libya-by-nato-backed-rebels-continues-as-world-watches/26643

Who in their right mind believes this? Oh, yeah, maybe the same ones that believed the troops would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4

And quoting a Washington Post propagandist that said Obama shows “an appreciation not just of the limits of U.S. power, but also of the limited need to exercise it.”

We can all see that he pushes U.S. power where he wants it, and that is, AGAINST the United States and its future. Contrary to the “peaceful guy” government propaganda, he is actively supporting operations that will be the country’s ruin, and he knows it. How can he not, unless his IQ is a lot less that his hiding of college records suggests.

You cannot blame Hillary Clinton for Obama’s continued war against Syria, his pretense bombing of ISIS while supporting Saudi Arabia’s support for ISIS in Syria. You can blame Obama for refusing to cooperate with Russia against ISIS, but not as a “weakness” or “peaceful” man. The truth is rather obvious: they don’t want it known that their support for “moderate Syrians” is a bogus smokescreen disinformation cover. Russia asked the U.S. to tell them where to avoid bombing, then asked them where to bomb.

How strange, two months or so after Obama’s own propaganda campaign for bombing Assad’s forces had hit a blowback wall, ISIS bursts onto the news cycle with captured American tanks and captured Iraqi oil wells, complete with a change in American opinion.

Christians, libertarians, gay marriage, who wants big government?

I am a very vocal Bible-believing Christian, and I got to tell you, that Christian libertarians are now in very great numbers, and the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds, as they realize that it is this approach to society that is the only view that anyone can say with certainty that God actually endorsed.

We have no king but JESUS!

Like God told Samuel, when the people demanded a government, a king, “They have rejected ME!” Because they didn’t want GOD to rule over them.

And Samuel warned them with the same warnings conservatives used to repeat in this country: The king will take your sons off to war, he will take your daughters off to his palaces to cook their delights, he will build his palaces with the burdensome taxes that will be to your grief. Needless to say, God’s warnings against government were validated with only the third king in Israel, because Solomon did all these things when he strayed from God’s wisdom. The result was a divided kingdom after his passing.

Even then, they said they wanted it because Samuel’s children were corrupt, after he appointed them judges, meaning they also wanted a king to protect them from abuse by their neighbors. BUT that means they themselves were already so corrupt they could not see that there was no obligation to follow those corrupt appointees. The laws of Moses are very clear, and there is NOT ONE reference or mention to ANY kind of government there. That’s how the custom of judges arose, they were spontaneous callings of God to the farmers like Gideon who raised armies to expel invaders who did impose kingships on them. Then they beat their swords back into plows and farmed again. And sometimes the people went to those judges to mediate disputes and for guidance later on….

In fact, the laws of Moses not only makes no provision for government of any kind, except the individual’s governing of himself and what is his, the Ten Commandments condemn it explicitly.

If somebody takes your property without your explicit permission, that’s THEFT. That’s why taxation is pure THEFT. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

Romans 13 was very specific and the reasons given for respecting secular authority was contextual and conditional. The Romans actually kept the high priests in check, and God anointed them to both protect the Messiah from the persecutors and to expand the early reach and the future of the Gospel.

The “libertarians” that promote government intervention in things like marriage are just as clueless as Christians who look to government instead of God for a marriage certificate!

Remember the presidential debates, when they asked the question about “gay marriage”, the born-again Baptist who said EVERYTHING he did was from his Christian faith, Ron Paul, said the government should get out of it and leave it to churches like it was before. And the not-so-Christian Gary Johnson actually said the same thing!

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Ask yourself: what in the entire world did Caesar have that did not come from conquering by THEFT and spoils of the wars of lust that James spoke of?

Matthew 17 tells you what Jesus thought of tribute to Caesar.

He said we pay taxes so as not to offend them, in other words, so they’ll leave us alone.

D. James Kennedy(*) did a program once around “St. Patrick’s Day”. He said the Pope had to “send an army” to subjugate the Irish to Papal hegemony. (as late as the 10th or 11th century?). (And maybe more than once?)

* — I have significant differences with him on many things he said theologically, and some of his political viewpoints. In his favor, when he spoke in one program about war, during the Afghan and Iraq invasions, it seemed like he deliberately avoided even the appearance of endorse that war, but did talk a lot about St. Augustine’s theories about justifiable war.

“How the Irish Saved Civilization” also told about the years following Patrick’s ministry in Ireland. In those years, he tells us, there arose “convents” all around the island, with men, women, families, babies and all living communally, and often the guide, or leader, of the group was female. (“..There is no male nor female.. in Christ Jesus..”, spiritual equals but individuals).

By the way, Thomas Cahill also wrote about Patrick’s blast at the British clergy for their silence before the slave traders. Born a Brit, but having “become all things to all men”, Patrick wrote to in a scathing letter bishop, “Is it our fault we are born Irish?”.

In a famous prayer by Patrick, also, it was all Jesus and no other intercessor. “Jesus in me, Jesus above me, Jesus around me…..”

Cahill went easy on the Catholic version by saying it was just a matter of one meeting where “our apostle” (Peter) “can beat up your apostle” (Patrick) that brought them into Papal rule. This is evidence also that they were independent.

 

Columbians want to finish what Uribe started

The FARC may be protected –I do believe that. After all, for example, Jimmy Carter pushed “Rhodesia” into elections that Muzorewa won, and when the Mugabe gang cried foul (they didn’t win) then Carter pushed Zimbabwe into elections that Mugabe won. And he has not let go since.

The fracking story, same as here in the States, is just another meme that the elites are pushing to keep the gullible agitated about something, fearful about something so that their astroturf grassroots (with the gullible) can then demand more control. Elites to the rescue! After all, they are (this is their term, not mine) our “interplanetary guardians”! (Kid you not! You can’t make this stuff up! Stranger than fiction!)

About *-Columbia-* now, I lived there in Medellin as a missionary when there was a strong cartel presence and strong guerrilla presence both, and I’ve known lots of Columbians here in Miami. One I worked with agreed, that Uribe is a national hero among the people. In the States even alternative media doesn’t get the facts as well as they do with what’s going on here and to some extent in Europe.

Columbians in general were sick, tired, and disgusted with the lame way things were going. Gaviria got elected precisely on a platform of negotiating with FARC, and he was so serious about it he met their demand for a safe zone territory inside Columbia where they would not be bothered. (Probably to the consternation of its inhabitants). But Columbians wanted peace that’s why they elected him.

That was then. This is now. The FARC only used their safe zone to hold their couple hundred kidnapped ransom hostages, and stall, stall, stall, and they kept on killing people and blowing up things, business as usual. This went on for almost Gaviria’s entire one constitutional term. Near the end, due to pressure and embarrassment, he finally declare talks over and gave an ultimatum for that zone.

Biggest embarrassment for Gaviria was when the “paramilitary” groups –which had nothing to do with the military, that word is usually a propaganda trick of the elites, in my opinion. They circled that zone at one point and the FARC broke off talks demanding the government stop them. (OH, the irony! Government could not defeat FARC but stop the other guys). The independent self-defense forces were much more effective against them. (I met one guy who had land who gave us a ride once while hitchhiking). They just wanted to defend themselves.

So when Uribe ran for president, he spoke very clearly about getting serious about shutting them down. I think Columbians knew by then that the civilian politicians were timid about it, and saw Uribe as more serious. And serious he must have been, because during the campaign they murdered his son. Uribe’s next campaign speech after that was furious, and he said they thought they would stop him, but he was more determined than ever.

He proved to do exactly that, and the Columbians awarded him with a change in their constitution (not very easy there) to let him run a second term. They began getting some victories. That’s when Uribe got intelligence that led their forces to a FARC camp inside Ecuador that the Chavista president was obviously protecting. Correa was more angry about Columbian forces violating their territory than he was over Columbian guerrillas violating their territory (oops, maybe he had invited them?) or over Ecuador violating Columbian territory by supporting guerrilla bases.

So the Columbians changed their constitution again! And Uribe got a *third* term!

And my Columbian friends could not say enough good about him! In spite of the worldwide leftist propaganda machine. They indicted some Congresswoman to make it look like Uribe used dirty tricks to get re-elected but Columbians are not stupid. Not all that much.

So yeah. Leftists like Chavez, Correa in Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, sure corporations can deal with them. They prefer a government that can guarantee them protection and deals. But like Paraguay shows, there are chinks and leaks in the Propaganda Machine. According to Bible passages in Daniel, Revelation and others, the description of the prophesied world government fits socialist regimes. (“Shall by peace overthrow many”, “shall gain the kingdom by flatteries”, “a collector of taxes shall rise up”..) But they also speak of plenty of trouble for his regime, including from many who are not Bible believers.

So for all this, no, I would not be surprised at pseudo-capitalists, fascist-capitalists, working with leftists. At least the elites, the ones that coordinate. No doubt they do. Armand Hammer, Warburg. Saw a Cold-War era movie made in Russia once, about the Swedish capitalists that worked with the Bolsheviks to make great numbers of train cars to save the masses from hunger (according to this movie haha).

Also about the USG helping leftist regimes, I’ve shared many times (my contra-propaganda mission) that the American ambassador Hugo Llorens to (my wife’s country) Honduras (Hugo Llorens) was used in Zelaya’s TV spots as if he endorsed Zelaya’s fraudulent “referendum/survey”. He was at Zelaya’s presidential palace the night before the “survey” would take place that would justify his Chavez-style dictatorship, at the same table as the inner circle of planners. He was “known” in Honduran social circles to be in a compromising relationship with Zelaya’s son.

Hondurans were massively relieved when Zelaya was relieved of his then illegitimate occupation of the presidential palace.

USG intervention was definitely and unequivocally tilted “leftist” in that case. Who knows? Maybe they knowingly cooperated with the phony “coup” in Venezuela. The Chavista Supreme Court cleared the top military brass of all charges and they got full retirement with benefits, very quietly, a year or so later.

Columbia is a beautiful country and are horrified –like it says there– at the prospect of one of these brutal killers getting office. Columbia still has an ongoing amnesty program, and any one of them can just give up at any time. Uribe had them almost wiped out. Columbians are mad that Santos eased off the goal of ending it.

In Guatemala, Efrain Rios Montt put a halt to ranchers-motivated killings of protesting Indians and started a “guns and beans” program. The Indians themselves were armed and trained to defend themselves against the guerrillas and they made sure they didn’t go hungry doing it, and helped them trade too. The result was that the guerrillas lost the war right then in Guatemala, and the “Left” has never forgiven him. Guatemala would have elected him.

Ron Paul says Obama’s Drone Wars Undermine American Values

His comments are found at the Daily Bell:

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/35250/Ron-Paul-Obamas-Drone-Wars-Undermine-American-Values/

One big thing I like about Daily Bell is that they carefully analyze events, look for context, and make clear that what you see –in the regular news media fare- is not always what you get. No WSYWIG there, no sir. And it’s early to call for war crimes tribunals, as there is not sufficient infrastructure (yet anyway) to enforce them. Education will do its job. Ron Paul’s campaign to educate the American body politic is a good example of the greater effectiveness of this. The numbers of both those who are aware, both veterans in forums and publications, and the newly aware, will continue to grow despite the hysterical efforts of the Powers That Be to explain everything in Controlled Media in ways that pretend that there is no liberty movement. As long as there is a sector of the Internet that is free, and it is still possible to spread facts and the real stories at these electronic speeds, it will continue to grow. In fact, it will continue on in some form, even if they implement Lieberman’s wet dream of an Internet “off-switch…like China has.” Like China!

The USA has certainly supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists many places, and “installed” a few. But as a libertarian anarcho-capitalist myself, it is evident to me most left-fascists and libertarians alike, sometimes ascribe too much power to the CIA overseas. I call libertarians especially to telescope to a view of these world events from a higher altitude. I’ll bet you that some analysts within the intelligence apparatus have an inflated view of their own power.

For example, no matter how much Hugo Chavez and later Maduro blamed CIA plots for what Hondurans did in 2009, whatever the CIA did was irrelevant. My wife is from there, and it made me nervous that it might become another Venezuelan vassal state. If they paid out money here or there, they totally wasted all of it, because the overwhelming majority of the people of that country were dedicated to getting rid of the guy they supposedly elected earlier. It was a bit of a surprise even to me, since most of the poor are inclined toward looting the rich. I believe it’s possible Hugo Chavez won the first election, even though in my opinion he’s perfectly capable of committing fraud.

But I realized later that even many of the poor in Honduras are somewhat educated now about events elsewhere, and there is an Internet effect there too. It helped that apparently the media seems somewhat less subservient to the politicians, and some of the local elite families saw socialism as inimical to their own interests. There were probably a few of them also “hedging their bets” and secretly supporting the auto-coup plotter Zelaya, including one famous perennial presidential candidate who was accused very publicly of smuggling him into the Brazilian embassy.

Not all poor people are stupid or ignorant. Hondurans who hate poverty and who are capable of thinking analytically at all, they do NOT want an economy like Cuba’s or Venezuela’s. They know theirs has been corrupt, but they would rather not jump into the abyss of permanent poverty just like that. More so the middle class there.

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Zelaya and told him to resign, and so open the door for the socialist president that the American ambassador had supported in the efforts to establish his lifetime national socialist Chavista fiefdom. Yes he did. What the CIA does is secret, but in the small-town social environment of a country like Honduras, not everything can be kept secret. Hugo Llorens appeared in some of the televised propaganda for the propaganda cover for the overt stage of the auto-coup, the takeover manifest”referendum”.

The “demonstrations” in favor of Zelaya were padded with paid bodies. Chavez poured so much money in that the lempira rose a full 10% against the dollar for a few weeks while they tried to make a show of it for the world.

The CIA may have been doing its thing there, no doubt, but keep in mind that the FSS and FIS (successors to the KGB and the GRU) are not exactly dead, and Chavez was all about intervention himself. He offered President Micheletti $3 million dollars to resign, poured money in for marches (that never reached the numbers of the pro-Micheletti, anti-Zelaya, anti-Chavez, or even the irate protests against CNN and its reporter, who was distorting the situation there.

Socialism does not need any CIA intervention to collapse under its own destructive weight. The CIA often does, always does, intervene for its own purposes. But let us not kid ourselves. Sometimes it may act in a manner you least expect, also. Moles are not rare anywhere, and the Venona papers of course corroborated the accusations of Senator McCarthy that the State Department was infiltrated by outright Communists that reported to the Soviet Union.

And who can doubt the jubilation of East Germans when the Berlin Wall fell and they were able to join the “more free” market and prosperity of West Germany?

Who can doubt that 90% of North Koreans would seize the chance to migrate to South Korea?

Who can doubt that the United States today just might have more Cubans than Cuba itself? And remember, Cuba cannot blame the embargo either, since every other nation in the world allows trade with them.

And even with the case of Chile, almost nobody ever hears the fact that the Congress in Chile, lacking a constitutional method to impeach and dethrone the dictatorship of Salvador Allende, voted 81 to 47, on August 22, 1973, for a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of Allende’s unconstitutional actions, that he cease arming leftist cadres, and a series of other demands, PLUS they demanded the removal of Allende from office. The military did nothing until the Congress demanded it, because of the economic damage and the violence that the regime had propagated.

This was even dubbed a “trade secret” by leftist journalists in Latin America: That they begrudgingly knew, admitted among themselves, that Pinochet’s actions had resulted in a much more prosperous Chile. And that was before they joined the G-7 club of “developed” nations.

Let me restate here though that I am absolutely opposed to US intervention abroad, all of it.

But many actions seem even engineered to hurt American interests, of which drone strikes are a “striking” example. Even if the orders that go forth for those actions are not purposed to hurt the country, they may be an example of God’s warnings that he would “turn back” the weapons in the hands of a nation under judgment. (Jeremiah 21:4)

Maduro caled for peace in Venezuela? Really? Maduro?

This is an open letter to Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, in reaction to his article of April 5, 2014, at http://www.lewrockwell.com. I am copying it to my blog at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com.

His article is found here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/jacob-hornberger/us-out-of-venezuela/

Mr. Hornberger,

I’m an anarcho-capitalist that found out with Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 that my 40-year-old views had lined up with what are called “libertarian”, and as a former missionary that lived since early 1970s in Latin America or in Hispanic-dominated Miami-Dade Count. My ex-wife is from the Dominican Republic and my wife is from Honduras. I plan on retiring in Honduras. I hope it will not be overwhelmed by a socialist regime such as Maduro’s. What they have today would be better, but I hope to add to the libertarian conversation in Honduras.

I have a personal interest against USG and UN interventions around the world. Foreign aid and drug wars are killing men in great numbers in my wife’s country -and killing their economy. Maybe the new special economic regions, designed artfully with the help of some libertarian economists from the US and from the Mises-associated institute in Guatemala will help them. I hope.

No doubt the CIA is around somewhere doing whatever they do, and let us be honest here: Neither of us knows what they are really doing, except in general terms. I used to think we could presume they consistently support American capitalist interests. After Honduras, Libya, Syria, with the evidence from these episodes of the USG helping socialist dictators and its purported Number One enemy to gain power in these places, I’m not so sure. Honduras I know best; and they did not hide their efforts to support the socialist dictator there.

I am surprised and a bit irritated at the reaction to regimes like Maduros’. Especially since I read it on http://www.lewrockwell.com.

Before I get to why, I totally agree with your concluding paragraph:

Leave Venezuela to the Venezuelans. If private Americans wish to involve themselves in the controversy, that’s fine. But the U.S. government should butt out entirely. What happens in Venezuela is none of the U.S. government’s business. Unfortunately, given the secret nature of the U.S. national-security state, the American people will never know the extent of U.S. involvement in the Venezuelan crisis until the CIA’s files on the matter are opened several decades from now.

Maybe they’ll open the files, maybe not, but I doubt that any files that will be available either now or later will reveal anything on the subject worthwhile, and more likely misleading.

But it is an amazing spectacle to see all the well-deserved condemnation of probable USG involvement, and absolutely nothing about what the Venezuelans might actually want in reality independently of both the American government and their own dictatorship.

I don’t remember any such outrage over Obama’s demands and Hillary Clinton’s interventions in Honduras to try to force them to put the socialist dictator Manuel Zelaya.

The American ambassador to Honduras at the time, Hugo Llorens, made an appearance in a commercial aired by the Zelaya regime, propaganda to get public support for his very unpopular effort for his so-called “referendum” (later relabeled “survey”).

Hillary Clinton made a personal call to Roberto Micheletti to resign, which would of course make it easier to force Honduras to take Zelaya back as the dictator he already was.

This “referendum” horrified Hondurans, because they knew three things for sure. (1) One, the thing would be fraudulent. They know their politicians. (2) Two, Zelaya had already advocated presidential re-election (already defined as “treason” by the Honduras constitution because of earlier attempts at lifetime presidencies. (3) Three, and worst of all, it would open up for more fraudulent “elections” to create an irrevocable socialist dictatorship, Chavez style, in Honduras.

There was one piece that circulated on the Internet at the time, how Zelaya “brought the country together”. Every group of any significance at all in those days demanded first his resignation and then supported his removal and the constitutional successor government of Micheletti. Half the population filled the plazas of the biggest and the smallest cities and villages to say so. The Chambers of Commerce, BOTH major political parties, ALL the Congress (elected by the same people that voted for president), the Catholic Church (Zelaya’s mob had to import a priest), all the Protestant churches, all the unions (except the hopeless teachers’ union, that had them on strike more than in the classroom literally by count of days– for the previous three years), and EVERY ex-pat in a forum where I was member.

What’s the CIA going to do there? What can they do? Why would they waste a dime getting the country to get rid of somebody they did not want?

Oh, yeah, because Soros wants power. But no doubt HIS dirty hands were in the pot FOR Zelaya. Keynote speaker at the regional summit the November previous.

Hondurans got panicked at the prospect of fixed elections creating another Cuba or Venezuela in their country. They vote with their feet by getting to the States at the first opportunity.

Why is it so hard to understand that so many Hondurans, or even Venezuelans, hate the serfdom of socialism, along with the miserable poverty it brings?

Maduro bragged in his op-ed in the New York Times about universal health care? Oh get out! The poor have to bring their own sheets into hospitals and sleep on the floor there! We’re already getting our own taste of that bitter poisonous “medicine” in the States!

That was the attitude of most of the Hondurans. Fortunately for them, apparently many or most of the richest and most powerful interests were inclined their way. BUT not all; one zillionaire and perennial presidential candidate was fingered in newspapers and “on the street” as the one who smuggled Zelaya back in to the Brazilian embassy (Surprise, Brazilia!)

And it is relevant that Maduro is the heir of the Chavista regime that has meddled in its neighbor’s internal political affairs and tried its best to save the imposition by external Force of a dictatorship that had no regard for anything but seizing power.

The phony pro-Zelaya demonstrations had some genuine bodies, but it was mostly marching-for-hire. They poured so much money into the country that the lempira went up a full 10 percent against the dollar for those several months!

Zelaya admitted in a Univision interview that he had won the election by fraud by saying that all elections have fraud.

After 2009, I have followed events in Venezuela.

Please note an unsung development in Latin America. It’s hard to see its long-term effect, but it has been noticed by some statesmen “down south”.

Honduras changed history in Latin America with its reassertion of some constitutional order inside its borders, such as it is. Don’t get a smug face about it; they did better in 2009 than the US has done in recent years. Will Obama in 2016 declare a federal election nationwide to vote for a new constitution? That momentum is building, from both the phony “right wing” and the phony “left wing”.

After the 2009 elections in Honduras, the president of El Salvador of the former “leftist” guerrilla party, declared dead the move to join Venezuela’s petro association. The mayor of Caracas demanded the importation of “cojones” from Honduras. Freedom-minded Latins were inspired all over. Honduran ex-pat communities felt relief unspeakable. Brazilian Congressmen went back to Brazil with the news that the entire Brazilian community living in Honduras were engraged at Zelaya’s refuge in their embassy.

No doubt Paraguay had Honduras in the back of their minds when they impeached and dethroned their own dictator aspirant for his dictatorial acts. Venezuela’s caudillo government whined about another CIA-backed coup.

It’s a political safe bet down south (and apparently among some libertarian circles in the US today too) to blame the CIA and the US for all their troubles.

Maybe the CIA is trying for a coup in Caracas, given the atmosphere in Latin America today. Soros has his fingers everywhere. He would love to have a dictatorship to deal with, to give him good deals, good power, after all…

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

P.S. There are videos of the police shooting at protestors there. There is video on youtube of Chavistas shooting into the million-person march (literally) in cold blood that resulted in twelve people dead. A false flag coup distracted the world’s attention from this slaughter of civilians and a de-facto socialist coup ensued thereupon by outing anti-Chavez military to purge them. These “CIA lackeys” and “coup plotters” got no punishment at all, they were cleared by the *Chavista* Supreme Court of all charges, with military pensions and all honors retained. And it was a “CIA” coup?

Can people be more gullible?

 

Chinese Naval Vessel Tries to Force U.S. Warship to Stop in International Waters | Washington Free Beacon

BEIJING (April 18, 2009) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead speaks with Adm. Wu Shengli, Commander-in-Chief of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, during a visit to PLA Navy headquarters in Beijing. Roughead visited China to participate in the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy and to foster naval and military relationships between the two nations and explore areas for enhanced cooperation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones/Released) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://freebeacon.com/chinese-naval-vessel-tries-to-force-u-s-warship-to-stop-in-international-waters/

“On December 5th, while lawfully operating in international waters in the South China Sea, USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy vessel had an encounter that required maneuvering to avoid a collision,” a Navy official said.

“This incident underscores the need to ensure the highest standards of professional seamanship, including communications between vessels, to mitigate the risk of an unintended incident or mishap.”

—
No, this underscores the need for extreme skepticism at any forthcoming claims by the USG or military forces.

In view of the long and prolific history of false-flag incidents, watch out for any claims that China fired on a USG vessel.

USG <> We the People.
USG <> We individuals.

A long list of documented false flags from history:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-05/these-false-flags-were-used-start-war

aec

 

Related articles

• Chinese Naval Vessel Tries to Force U.S. Warship to Stop in International Waters (debatepolitics.com)

//

Right to Bear Arms: The Legal Question

I’m not trying to be argumentative, just curious. The current Court has struck down most recent attempts of states and municipalities to regulate arms. The NRA wages legal and electoral campaigns against anyone who breathes a hint to restrain a “right to bear arms“. The U.S. Congress, as well as the President, refuses to consider any restrictions.

—
The Supreme Court in the past few decades, has trashed the Constitution and allowed lots of infringing against the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Finally Illinois forced the issue with an obvious hit against the collectivist misinterpretation, and ruled that it was an individual right, not a state militia right.

[Cue the snicker sound track here.] After all, if the right to bear arms is a right of governments and not a right for individuals, then the Second Amendment really means, according to this insanity:

Does it say this?

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the [government???] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Cue riotous laughter at that…].

So to protect the “security” of a

Dred Scott, whose famous case to gain his freedom began as a lawsuit filed in St. Louis in 1846 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“free” state, the right of the government to bear arms shall not be infringed. Under this misinterpretation, the Second Amendment would presumably include the right to “bear” nuclear weapons.

So, are Steve and I permitted to own (keep) and use (bear) nuclear weapons (again, sorry, Norm, you were born on the wrong side of the pond)? If not, why not? That is, if I can keep and bear an AK-47 or AR-15 why not a thermonuclear device?

—-
There are MUCH WORSE people than you or Steve that already own (as in possess the use of) nuclear weapons.

#1. For example, one person who could throw nuclear weapons at somebody right now include one who arranged a massacre in a theater in which 130 innocent people died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20067384
…But some 130 hostages died – most not at the hands of the gunmen and women, but apparently because of the effects of the gas….

#2. Another group killed an estimated 5,000 with over 10,000 hurt critically, all in cold blood to stop a peaceful protest.. The troops they sent in were ordered to shoot anybody that got in the way; they were brought from distant bases (presumably so that they would not include too many who would worry about relatives being among the victims:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

#3. Another one has arrogated to himself the illegal and unconstitutional “authority” to order secret kills on anybody he wants to anywhere in the world and has done it with full public knowledge. He (and his subordinates in command) continue their and unconstitutional and interventionist wars in five foreign countries.

For survivors, he has put command-and-control death panels in their future. Special treatment for special friends.

Rational people would demand all means possible to defend themselves against these obvious pathological maniacs, ruthless killers. And the list above is of the ones currently in possession of the worst nuclear weapons in the world. It does not include criminal dictators and rulers from the past or the future.

I’m serious. I admit that a reasonable person would not want Jason to have a tight rubber band, much less a nuke, but seriously should that be a limitation (no matter how logical and reasonable)? Instead is there case law which delineates what is protected by the 2nd amendment and not? Perhaps case law defines “arms”, which means that there would be a line in the sand; what is that line? I.e., what is protected and what is not?

—-
Case law is worse than useless when it numbs the mind of erudite attorneys at law and of citizens who accept it. Case law changes on the whim of those who make it, including 100s of reversals by the most respected Court in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court. Their ruling on the Republicans’ Civil RIghts Act in the 1960s reversed the Dred Scott case, for which you cannot find one little phrase of justification in even the slaver-protecting Constitution. (Justification was provided by the horror they felt at the prospect of blacks being able to carry arms, because if they are free men they carry arms).

2nd Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

—
And some people out there in the cackling industry actually try to pretend it means that governments have the right to arm themselves!

Imagine that! Next thing they’ll pass a law that says chickens shall lay eggs and water shall flow downhill!

At least those amendments and laws would make lots more sense than the sewage pouring forth from looters’ governments today!

Related articles

• The Case for Constitutional Carry (thetruthaboutguns.com)
• Another Push Toward Revolution? US Senate Says Right to Keep & Bear Arms is Debatable (sgtreport.com)
• The “Collectivist Right” Interpretation of the Second Amendment: Created in Kansas in 1905 (gunwatch.blogspot.com)
• The Right to Keep and Bear Arms [With Less Than 10 Rounds] Shall Not Be Infringed (thetruthaboutguns.com)

//

//

Christ is Anti-War

Way to go, Paul! I’ve been preaching against the state of war and especially the American version ever since before I became a missionary. Went from Vietnam-era anti-war Communist to anti-war Christian preaching against the fiat money changers. It’s a gospel message, and this looks like a “mission field” I fell into, like Wilberforce with slavery.

The books of Moses that so many atheist voices use to make their warrior accusations actually says the opposite. In fact God told Abraham he could not have the promised land because their “cup of iniquity” was not yet “full”. Only when they were past the point of no return in their violence against each other, against their women, and raising the next generation worse than ever, and sacrificing the babies to their gods, THAT is when he said to “wipe them out”, by which he ordered them explicitly and specifically in the same mission to leave the women and the children alive.

There was one exception to that, and only after they had defeated the Amalekites THREE times, only to find that the women had raised the next generation to attack the Hebrews again.

When they demanded a government (a king by any other name) from Samuel, God said they had rejected HIM. Preachers misconstrue Romans 13. The 501(c)3 status has a lot to do with them muzzling themselves, they even admit it outright, demanding a change it that very law, and the IRS attitude toward enforcement.

Romans 13 denotes more of a contract and describes what a government does when God allows one to continue extant. If they don’t “bear the sword” for good, they broke the contract. When they “[touch] the apple of [God’s] eye”, warnings abound and judgment.

And hey! Jesus paid taxes? Yeah, read the rest of Matthew 18. By way of a question, he said the people that collect taxes are corrupt. “Do their children pay tribute?” he asked. “No”, answered the disciples, and we see that today with the exemption Congressmen give to themselves, to the President and his underlings, and the Courts. And we see that also in the Federal Reserve.

Remember, the only revolutionary violence Jesus Christ did was to beat the money changers out of the temple at the end of a very nasty whip, and he overturned their tables in a fierce anger. (“Be ye angry and sin not.”- Be angry at the proper targets of same but don’t ride it into sin.) You can imagine what he would do today to the money changers of the Federal Reserve. After all they believe in that old joke: “Got change? Thanks. Yeah, I meant change from your hand to mine.”

I have written a e-booklet on the subject of how Christianity demands a libertarian type stance toward government. I’m just looking for an editor first. I’ll put it up on my blog at http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com and/or http://www.truebook.wordpress.com. The latter is more on Biblical and doctrinal issues when I post there less often than the other. This subject is voluminous.

From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? —James 4:1

 

Related articles

• Betty’s Verse Of The Day/10-24-13 (togodbetheglorybettysverseoftheday.wordpress.com)
• Does Romans 13 Teach Blind Obedience to Government? (revisedhistory.wordpress.com)
• the cure (beginthestory.wordpress.com)
• Romans 13:8-14 (vesselsofclay.org)
• But The Gospel… (loveistakingover.com)