Total Pageviews

Popular Posts

Monday, March 12, 2012

About my book, THE FROG IS COOKED



Why you have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
This is a description of my book, THER FROG IS COOKED. It is not a cook book!
It is a compilation of crimes committed by government against citizens. This concerns you. If you don’t know these things then you will never be free and awake! The title is a parable on the high school experiment where you throw a frog in boiling water and he will jump out but if you put him in warm water and turn up the heat he will sit there like the American public until it’s too late.

The book is a CONSTITUTIONAL PETITIUTION FOR REDRESS OF GREVIENCE. Most people don’t seem to understand that either. It is one of your First Amendment Human Rights. The first Amendment reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Every Senator and Congressman needs to read this book so that they have a clear picture of what government is about and what they have done to us to so that they know that we know how they are bleeding us to death. This book is about acquiring the knowledge to keep your human rights. Our state government laws refer to humans as livestock; “persons and other animals.” That’s how they can criminalize you and charge you with commerce laws. You are not a person. You are a human being. The Federal government Poultry and Livestock Manual refers to citizens as Goyim. Look that one up. 

In the 1950 the husband worked an 8-hour day in a factory while his wife stayed home and took care of the kids. A person could buy a new two-bedroom home for $15,000 and pay for it in two years. You could buy a new car for $3,500. If you wanted whitewall tires and a radio you might have to pay $3,800. A candy bar only cost a nickel. I remember those days.

After our government started rebuilding Germany, France, Japan and other nations and gave billions away to Egypt, Iran, Russia, Zambia and every other nation on Earth it inflated the dollar where your wages were worth less and less. They stole your labor and turned you into a slave. Now a candy bar cost $1.50 some places. They devalued your money 30 times.

As the value of the dollar was stolen from us and time progressed your standard of living fell and you had to work two jobs and you had little or no free time to spend with your family. Your kids grew up in government funded schools and day care centers where they were brainwashed with sleep deprivation, loud bells, and hideous lies and propaganda. Many rebelled against this authoritarian system and became juvenile delinquents, and rebels. They took drugs, dropped out and filled up the jails.

Your children joined the service to become cannon fodder and you never saw them again. Some of them came home missing an arm or a leg and some of them had severe head wounds. The vast majority of them were infected with micoplasma incognitos in their DNA and they passed it on to their wife and kids altering the gene pool forever. They inhaled depleted uranium dust used in rockets and bunker bombs insuring that they will die of cancer in a few years. The horrors of war so altered their thinking processes that they became society’s outcasts unfit to hold down a job.   

Meanwhile your wife sued you divorce because you weren't home taking care of business and the lawyers took everything you had. 

If by some miracle you still had a family after your service to your country both of you had to work in order to make a living. This meant that your children were in the care of the government funded day care centers where they were forced to watch Barney and other mentally debilitating programs designed to make them retarded. 

You are a bonded slave from birth. Within five days after you are born the hospital administrator fills out a BIRTH CERTIFICATE with your name in all capital letters thereby turning you into a corporation. They record that BIRTH CERTIFICATE with the Bureau of Vital Statistics. After that, the birth records are sent to Washington DC where they are bundled like mortgages and sold as birth bonds. The price was $1,200,000.00 per individual before George Bush was president. Once Bush started the wars in the Middle East the bankers reduced the Birth bonds to: $900,000.00. 

If by some miracle you still had a family after your military service both of you had to work in order to make a living. This meant that your children were in the care of the government even more.

Trading in Birth Certificates (Double Entendre)
I only found out a few months ago that the governments of the Commonwealth nations and the U.S., use our whole life's labor, individually valued at many millions of dollars, as collateral (earning interest!) against their national debt. It is a system that has been in place for at least 70 + years, since the Great Depression, when the U.S., and presumably other Western countries, became debtor nations. And it starts with your birth certificate.

There was a trust created in your name when you were registered as a baby, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. I looked up my own birth certificate and found the bond for it at fidelity.com. Commonwealth nation citizens, as well as U.S. citizens, can find their birth certificate bond on this same website.This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been successfully used by quite a few people who know about it, and obviously does not have mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time.

To see this for yourself, follow the instructions below:

go to
www.fidelity.com
Click on Research
Click on Quote
Click on Symbol Look Up
Enter Birth Certificate No (usually your year of birth first, i.e. 1967/then the number) (your birthday certificate number is either in a box top right hand corner or somewhere in the document usually on the top line.)
Make sure the top two areas in the drop down boxes say MUTUAL FUND and FUND NUMBER before doing the search to find out who is trading on the FUND for the birth Certificate.
Next click on Initialed Trading Company name under SYMBOL (usually in blue color i.e.
FFNBX or something like that)

Click on chart to see the activity in the last few years.

This will give you all the trading info about who is trading on the fund that the birth certificate is a part of. Commercial laws allow you to cancel and rescind this 'simple contract 'UCC3-203' and to make a claim in recoupment (Reparations) for fraud committed upon you when you were an infant (see UCC 3 - 305)

If you Google "Uniform Commercial Code 2-305" you will see something like this link:
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/laws/ucc.php?code=2-305
In this Nebraskan Code, you will see the common language that shows that since the government did not tell you about the contractual arrangement made at your birth. Therefore, you have a right to revoke the contract.

Quote from a book by Canadian author Mary Croft (She has a Kindle book on Amazon):
"The amount of credit the feds earned from investing in securities the credit borrowed from us via the registration of our births has pre-paid anything you might ever want or need. We are the creditors, and the federal mafia is the debtor. They owe us interest for using our credit, yet, since they (the Public) are bankrupt, there is no 'substance money' so we, as creditors, will have to get paid by taking equity, in the form of our houses and cars, as the 'set-off' - the balancing of the account. They owe us interest on our credit which they are using to pay for the manufacturing of all the goods and services we are buying. We have already paid for the product before we buy it. We are still the principals of the securities because said investment was never disclosed to us. The feds are hoping we won't request the profits of our investments, however, if and when we do, it is substantial enough that we would never have to work again. We could never spend it all.
WE DO NOT NEED, NOR WERE WE EVER MEANT, TO 'WORK FOR A LIVING'

The government floated a bond against our future earnings by using our birth registrations as the collateral for our 'promise to pay'. Income tax is just their having 'educated' you to pay the interest on the loan YOU lent THEM. When we access our Direct Treasury Accounts, those held at the BC/ FRB under our SINs/ SSNs, we will no longer 'have to' work. Meanwhile, we will continue to:
1. slave-labor for entities which do not exist except for the purpose of
profit,
2. do something other than what we were designed to do, and
3. believe that we (extensions of our Creator) are worthless enough to have to pay for our existence.

For some background material from Canada click here:
http://www.thinkfree.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=59

Here is a video from England that will help you understand a bit more.
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/article...s-its-illusion

There are a couple good jokes in my book making it worth the $15.00 price tag. I sent it to a professional editor. After reading it she had a nervous breakdown and had to seek professional counseling.

When I was writing it someone sent me a copy of the Report from Irion Mountain. It is a very interesting document that was supposedly in the bottom drawer of a surplus copy machine purchased from Andrew Air Force Base. I don’t understand it but it sounded conspiratorial so I copied it word for word into the book. I didn’t transcribe the math into the book because I couldn’t figure out how to do it on my word processor.

The Report from Iron Mountain is a book published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press which puts itself forth as the report of a government panel. The book includes the claim it was authored by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. It details the analyses of a government panel which concludes that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power. The book was a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into fifteen languages. Controversy still swirls over whether the book was a satiric hoax about think-tank logic and writing style or the product of a secret government panel. In 1972, Leonard Lewin said the book was a spoof and that he was its author.

The book was first published in 1967 by Dial Press, and went out of print in 1980. E. L. Doctorow, then an editor at Dial, and Dial president Richard Baron agreed with Lewin and Navasky to list the book as nonfiction and to turn aside questions about its authenticity by citing the footnotes.[1]
Liberty Lobby put out an edition c. 1990, claiming that it was a U.S. government document, and therefore inherently in the public domain; Lewin sued them for copyright infringement, which resulted in a settlement. According to the New York Times, "Neither side would reveal the full terms of the settlement, but Lewin received more than a thousand copies of the bootlegged version." (Kifner, 1999)
Likewise, an edition was brought out in 1993 by Buccaneer Books, a small publisher reprinting out of print political classics. It is unclear whether this was authorized by the author.
In response to the bootleg editions, Simon & Schuster brought out a new hardcover edition in 1996 under their Free Press imprint, authorized by the author Lewin, with a new introduction by Navasky and afterword by Lewin both admitting the book was fictional and satire, and discussing the original controversy over the book and the more recent interest in it by conspiracy theorists.

Contents of the report
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.

The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.

Reaction by Lyndon Johnson
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.

There has to be something to it if President Johnson reacted the way he did.

Hoax or real?
In 1996, Jon Elliston wrote that the book is generally believed to be a hoax authored by one man, Leonard Lewin,[3] and the book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt. (Kifner, 1999)
In an article in the March 19, 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Lewin said that he had written the book.

Statements made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: "As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public."[5]

Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: "For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce".
The original reporter reported the following six days later: "Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword – Mr. Lewin'.”

I didn’t fully understand the Report From Iron Mountain until a year ago I was doing a radio interview and a flash of insight suddenly revealed to me how this software was being used on the Citizens of the united States. Oh, I knew the math part was some kind of software developed by the Air Force in the early part of World War II to test aircraft to see if they would fall apart then the guns were fired. The math resembles statistic math where you add up number values on a series of integers or stress points on the aircraft. A cannon was mounted on a mockup fuselage of the type of aircraft that they intended to mount it on. They would tape hundreds of bi-metal stress analyzers to the gun mounts and all over the structure. They’d hook up the outputs to a rudimentary computer that would print out sheets of paper showing the stress points and fire hundreds of rounds through the cannon until the structure failed. If it didn’t meet the required strength they’d either beef it up with more aluminum or change the gun mounts to dampen vibration.

After the War, Vice President David Rockefeller had access to military secrets including the Air force computer hardware and software used to analyze gun mount stress. He was smart enough to visualize how it could be used to predict rather or not a given stock would rise or fall. He sent the software over to his Alma Marta at Harvard to develop it further. They increase the number of data inputs and rewrote it for more modern computers.

You may have heard of the Promise Ware software. Picture a room full of a hundred or so TV computer monitors with each showing the price of various commodities like food, gasoline, steel, aluminum, gold, clothing, and crude oil all hooked up to one computer that would predict what would happen if the price of oil doubled. With this setup the Rockefeller family made billions. They could tweak the price of sugar or any commodity and see what would happen to a hundred other things and then go long or short on several of the commodities. Since he owned most of the refineries and controlled over half of the oil entering the United States he could shut down a refinery for a week raising the price of diesel and make a billion dollar a week for his extended family and intimate friends.
  
It wasn’t too long before the Federal Government military industrial complex got their hands on it. They reasoned that they could get more tax money out of families if both the husband and wife worked several jobs. They deliberately devalued the value of money making it almost impossible for a family to survive on one income. The rest is history.
My book explains why you have to work two jobs to make ends meet. I wrote it to educate you about our government’s system of slavery in the hope that it will enable you to have a better more free life.

Remember there are only ten-thousand inbred ruling elite that want to kill off 90% of the world population so that they can stay in power. They fear us because of our numbers. Only knowledge can free us. www.GuardDogBooks.com

Best wishes, Hank Kroll                        

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Amendments ratified to protect people from government.


Once you understand this “preamble,” you’ll see that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the people of the several States of the Union—but not against invasion by foreign enemies—but rather, from despotism imposed by our own federal government.
If you google “Bill of Rights preamble” you’ll find several sources for this document.
Here’s the Preamble’s text:
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The previous “preamble” is then followed by the first ten Amendments (“Bill of Rights”).
The fundamental “purposes” for the Bill of Rights is seen in the first paragraph/sentence of the Preamble:
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Fifty-nine words. One sentence. Let’s take it apart, piece by piece:
• First, who caused the Bill of Rights to be added?
A: “THE Conventions of a number of States”.
Note that these “conventions” were not state legislatures, but were instead private “assemblies” of the People of the various States of the Union. These “conventions” took place to ratify the Constitution in A.D. 1787 & 1788.
The Constitution was ratified by the People, not by the State governments. That tells us that the People were the sovereigns (plural), not the governments of the States of the Union. In essence, the People/sovereigns agreed to ratify the Constitution on condition that a Bill of Right would subsequently be added. (It might be argued that if there’s no Bill of Rights, then there’s no Constitution.)
The Constitution is the “People’s law”. Statutes are the “government’s law”. The government’s law is intended to be of lower authority than the People’s law.
• Second, why did the People “desire” these first ten Amendments?
A: “[T]o prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”
What does the preamble mean by “its powers”? It means the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution.
Who could misconstrue or abuse the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution? The States of the Union? No. The counties? No. Foreign countries like England, Canada or France? No.
Insofar as the federal government is the only entity with access to the powers of the Constitution, the only entity that might able to “misconstrue or abuse” the newly-granted powers of the Constitution would be the federal government.
Thus, the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.
Get that?
The People who founded this country expressly demonstrated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights that the People, quite sensibly, didn’t trust the newly-created federal government as far as they could throw it. They regarded the federal government as a necessary evil and, as George Washington had once warned, at best a “dangerous servant”. Therefore, distrusting the newly-created federal government, the People insisted that the Constitution be amended to include additional protections for the People and against the federal government.
From this perspective, you can see that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was intended to protect the People from federal government. I.e., the 2nd Amendment was intended to empower the People to shoot federal politicians, officers and employees if they tried to use the Constitution as a device to subject the People to despotism rather than serve them.
(This implies that the fundamental purpose of the militia’s of the States of the Union (referenced in the 2nd Amendment) was to protect the States against the federal government. This is particularly interesting insofar as modern “state militias” (National Guard) are now primarily under the control of the federal government rather than the governments of the Sates of the Union. Thus, the organized “militia” originally intended to protect the People against the federal government, has been captured by the feds and now primarily serves the federal government rather than the People of the States.)
The purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that the People had enough weapons to intimidate (and, if need be, kill) federal officers or employees if they attempted to subject the People to despotism (absolute rule). This is not a license to shoot any cop you don’t like. But, as declared in the “Declaration of Independence,”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights refers to “misconstruction and abuse” of the powers of the Constitution. The “Declaration of Independence” refers to “abuses and usurpations”. I have no doubt that the “misconstruction” referenced in the Bill of Rights corresponds to the “usurpations” (unwarranted takings of powers not granted) in the Declaration.
“Despotism” means absolute and unlimited power confided to single man or elite group. It necessarily means that such “despot” would not recognize any higher authority including 1) the God of the Bible; and 2) the People. Instead, the “despot” (individual or elite group) would rule however he/it desired without limit or restraint imposed by others.
Correlatively, “despotism” means that the People other than the “despot(s)” are reduced not merely to status subjects (who have some rights such as the right of protection due from a monarch to his subjects), but to status of objects—to the status of chattel, goy, animals and “human resources”—who have virtually no rights whatsoever.
I.e., if the “despot” has absolute power, the People have no power (or rights) whatsoever.
The Declaration declares that when there is persistent evidence (a “long train of abuses and usurpations”) that a particular “government” intends to rule with absolute authority, recognizing no higher authority and reducing the people to the status of objects without rights—then it is the People’s right and even duty to “throw off” such despotic government and form a new government whose principle duty would to secure the People’s “future security” rather than the security of the despot and/or of the government (perhaps under the pretext of “national security”).
Thus, the Declaration was based in part on the principle that the fundamental purpose of government is to serve the People rather than compel the People to serve the government.
But, when there was sufficient evidence to show that a government had abandoned its role as servant and assumed the role of master (despot), then it was the People’s right and duty to “throw off” such government and construct another.
How do you suppose such despotic governments should (or could) be thrown off? By petitioning our congressmen? By voting the despot(s) out of office?
Insofar as we are subjected to a despotic government, by definition, that government doesn’t give a damn about anything the People say or vote because the despots presume the People to be objects rather than men and women made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. By definition, a despotic government will not admit the People have rights or peacefully restore power to the People.
When faced with a despotic government, the people have only three choices: 1) surrender and submit to the violence of despotism; 2) wait on God to miraculously remove the despots; and 3) commit violent acts to “throw off” the despots.
Despotism is, by definition, violent. Either the People consent to be subjected to the despot’s violence, or the People rise up to “throw off” the despot by subjecting the despot to violence. The United States of America began with the choice to “throw off” the despots by means of violence against the despot.
The right to commit violence against despots would be essentially meaningless unless the People retained sufficient weapons to affect that overthrow.
The 2nd Amendment is evidence that the Founders: 1) never trusted the federal government; and 2) sought to provide the People with sufficient weapons to “throw off” any despots that might one day seize control of the levers of federal power.
The 2nd Amendment’s purpose is not to protect the right to go duck hunting in the Fall. It’s not to protect us against invasion by Red China. The 2nd Amendment recognized that the principle enemy of the People of The United States of America was, and would always be, our own federal government.
Thus, the 2nd Amendment’s purposes are:
1) always to intimidate the federal government with the implicit threat of blowing their damn brains out if they become despots (masters) rather than servants; and
2) rarely, but sometimes, to shoot and kill any agents of despotic government.
Much like the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment’s protections for freedoms of assembly, speech, press and petitioning government for redress of grievance were all intended to prevent the federal government from silencing the people in order to subject them to Despotism.
Likewise, every one of the first ten Amendments were ratified for the purpose of protecting the People of the States from the federal government’s intentional “misconstruction” or “abuse” of the powers of the Constitution of the United States.
• Third, how can we describe the first ten Amendments?
A: As “declaratory and restrictive clauses”.
Who makes “declarations”? Sovereigns.
I.e., the “sovereigns” (We the People) made certain “declarations” (Bill of Rights) concerning how the powers that we delegated to the federal government might be exercised by our servants—the federal officers and employees.
What do these clauses “restrict”? The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the ability of federal officers and employees to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution.
Just as the “governor” on an engine is intended to ensure that the engine will never exceed a certain speed, the Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government would never exceed the limits of powers intended and granted by the Founders.
• Fourth, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights further explains a purpose of the Bill of Rights as, “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The term “confidence” typically implies the existence of a trust relationship wherein the beneficiary “trusts” the fiduciary (servant) to act in the best interests of the beneficiary. Similarly, the term “beneficent” is sufficiently similar to “beneficiary” to imply the existence of a trust relationship.
As used in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, The terms “public confidence” and “beneficent ends” imply that the Constitution is a trust indenture wherein the People (sovereigns) are intended to be the beneficiaries and the government (and it officers and employees) are intended to be fiduciaries (servants) acting in the best interests of the People/beneficiaries. The “beneficent ends” of the Constitution were to serve the best interests of the People of the several States of the Union.
• George Washington—the first president of the federal government—once warned that, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Washington saw government as existing in only two forms:
1) dangerous servant; and
2) fearful master.
In Washington’s view, the best you ever get from any government is a “dangerous servant”.
That is, under a trust indenture like the Constitution, government may be the People’s servant/fiduciary—but that government is always struggling to reverse that relationship, assume the role of the “master”/sovereign and reduce the people to the role of fiduciaries/servants (or even objects). Washington warned that while government may be your servant, that servant is always dangerous, always seeking to overthrow the People’s sovereignty and claim absolute power and sovereignty for itself. Thus, anyone dumb enough to trust the government is a fool and a lousy excuse for an “American”.
Insofar as the “dangerous servant” succeeds in usurping power and sovereignty for itself, it evolves into the “fearful master” (despot) and the People are necessarily degraded to the status of subjects, objects or even animals.
Since A.D. 1933, American history provides ample evidence that our “ever-dangerous servant” has usurped and abused powers, that it is bent on becoming our national despot and reducing Americans to the status of “objects” or “animals”.
As irrefutable evidence, consider the articles I’ve written on “man or other animals” at http://adask.wordpress.com/category/man-or-other-animals/. Pay particular attention to http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/#more-46 and http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-3/#more-47 which show that our government has expressly declared the People to be nothing more than “animals” and that doing so constitutes an act of GENOCIDE against the American People.
This is no joke. Genocide. It’s not hyperbole. When you apply the facts to the law of genocide, it’s apparent that your purported government, right now, is committing genocide against you, me and the American people. This is absolute evidence that our “dangerous servant” is evolving into the “fearful master”.
Who believes that today’s “government” is acting in the best interests of the American People? Anyone? Who believes that today’s federal “government” has not perpetrated “a long train of abuses and usurpations” against We the People? Who would deny that the evidence of this “long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”?
As declared in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to The Constitution of the United States are intended to protect us against the despotism of the federal government. Use them accordingly.

In the beginning, there was the Word . . . .
And almost immediately thereafter, there was attorning and manipulation of words–resulting in “propaganda”. (“Surely, you will not die . . . .”)
He who dictates and formulates the words and phrases we use, he who is master of the press and radio, is master of the mind. Repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity for communicating dissent and opposition. This is the formula for political conditioning of the masses.” -Joost Meerloo
“If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” - Edward Bernays

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

We are not ensnared or enslaved by guns and clubs–we are ensnared by words. Those who don’t respect their dictionaries as much as their firearms have little hope of being free. Those more willing to shoot than to speak out are similarly condemned

Monday, February 20, 2012

MORE GUN CONTROL 2012 ELECTION


Washington Times:
President Obama is using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda just before the election. One particularly sneaky provision buried deep within his submission to Congress Monday would, if enacted, allow the mistakes of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to be repeated.

In November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.

Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”

Mr. Cornyn did not buy this explanation. “I understand the president has ‘complete confidence’ in Attorney General [Eric] Holder to not carry out further gun-walking operations like Fast and Furious, but 99 U.S. senators voted otherwise,” he told The Washington Times on Wednesday, referring to the upper chamber’s unanimous vote in October approving the amendment.

Even Democrats wanted to prevent the Justice Department from scheming to have guns sent over the border to Mexican drug cartels after the botched scheme led to the death of a border agent. Liberal Sen. Barbara Mikulski surprised many with her outspoken support for Mr. Cornyn’s amendment. “Fast and Furious was brought to an end but with terrible problems,” said the Maryland Democrat. “Hundreds of Mexican citizens have died, our own law enforcement people have died, and we have to do something about it.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has been investigating the administration’s role in Fast and Furious. When asked by The Washington Times about the White House attempt to change policy, the California Republican replied, “It’s bewildering that anyone would seek to strip a legal prohibition on federal agents walking guns, considering the well-known tragic consequences.”

Mr. Obama’s budget contains other gun-grabbing surprises. The White House is looking to reclaim authority to destroy surplus M1 Garand rifles and M1 Carbines. For 30 years, the Defense Department has been blocked from scrapping these collectible firearms that served our soldiers well in World War II and the Korean War. The administration also wants to melt down the military’s spent brass casings, thwarting gun owners who have been buying and recycling the surplus materials.

The president’s budget would also restore millions in funding to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control so they can pump out junk science studies claiming handguns are a public health hazard.


Mr. Obama is becoming more brazen in his disdain for the Second Amendment as his first term winds down, perhaps in an attempt to rally his dispirited liberal base headed into November. For those who believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, this ought to serve as an equally loud wake-up call.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

HR 808 Is this joke?


HR 808 for the Dept. of Peace and they want to change the Gospel and make all the religions all equal and I knew the world was going to end if Obama won the election. ...

ThePeaceAlliance.org – Announces on Monday, October 26 2009 Ana Campos, Board Member & Jason Frost who has been rallying support for US Department of Peace, along with notable Politicians & Celebrities will present Official Federal HR-808 Proposal.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) - Oct 24, 2009 -
Miami Beach, FL (ALL MEDIA OUTLETS) October, 24 2009 -- http://www.ThePeaceAlliance.org - Proudly announces that on Monday, October 26 2009 Ana Campos, Board Member and Petitioner who has been rallying support for a United States Department of Peace, along with many notable Politicians and Celebrities will present Official Federal HR-808 Proposal to the President of the United States.

Department of Peace volunteers across the nation have managed to continually support Ana Campos and the many other people involved in this effort to establish a United States Department of Peace. Senator Nelson, our 3 Florida Congressional Cosponsors, 7 additional Members of Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all potential strong supporters in this effort to pass this Bill. This is a chance to speak and remind to President Obama about the bill he once showed avid interest in, while running for President.

Neighboring supporter Jason Frost of A Frosty J Productions (ASCAP) – FrostyJ.com -has been championing the cause much like Ana Campos for nearly a decade applying pressure to get this Bill passed with help from powerful and influential associates in the Hollywood & New York City Arts and Film Community. Notable supporters include recently Actor turned Rapper Joaquin Phoenix, Flea of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and many more as listed on ThePeaceAlliance.org website. A Music compilation to support and raise money for this cause is also in the works with more information and artists involved in the Peace project to help further inform the public.

In the 1990s Jason Frost first began working towards establishing peaceful conflict resolutions through the use of Music and Entertainment that focused on the positive aspects to a diverse and multi-cultural society; organizing concerts and events that promoted peace and unity among various peoples, groups and races holding multiple conflicts. With the advent of the Internet people like Jason Frost and Board Member Ana Campos have been able to reach far more supporters than in pre Internet years. It is the opinion of everyone involved that we are very close to finally establishing a US Dept of Peace. An integral addition to already strong domestic resolution policies as established and set in motion by the Clinton staff of the 1990s.

This is about the war in our own communities and what can we do federally and locally to help prevent crime and violence.

This Federal US Department of Peace would primarily work to prevent violence domestically (domestic abuse, child and elderly abuse, gang violence, hate crimes, homicides and battery) at it’s root causes –not just continue to apply band aids. It would bring tools of violence prevention (peer mediation, nonviolent communication, conflict resolution) into all school systems(K -12) to aid Teachers and Students.

At the end of the day, the US Department of Peace would creates a seat for violence prevention, for the first time in the President’s Cabinet of Advisors which will serve to advise him on their expertise on the latest cutting edge techniques in conflict resolution, violence prevention, diplomacy, mediation, and community based strategy programs on crime prevention. A copy of the most recent Bill is available for review at ThePeaceAlliance.org along with links to donate, get stickers, t-shirts and support this very important cause that affects us all.

The Presidential Event is in Miami Beach this Monday.

Ana Campos

Board Member, The Peace Alliance
South Florida State Organizer
U.S. Department of Peace Campaign
Email: ACampos_2001@yahoo.com

Jason Frost
Volunteer Supporter, The Peace Alliance
A Frosty J Productions (ASCAP) – FrostyJ.com
U.S. Department of Peace Campaign
Email: JFrost_1994@sunservers.net

National Website: http://www.ThePeaceAlliance.org
DoPeace Website: http://DoPEACE.ning.com

# # #

At our helm is Jason Frost, who has the experience, dedication, entrepreneurial leadership and respect of some of the most well known names in the music and film industry today. Our staffed network consists of creative and professional audio sound and visual engineering specialists ready to meet any project deadline and exceed your very best expectations. We also retain a staff of highly skilled musicians as part of our own in-house songwriting and composing team so that we can arm you with newer sounds, fresher beats and better background music than the competition. A Frosty J Productions (ASCAP) is growing everyday and is already part of a largely expanding network of newly created partnerships extending into the areas of film, TV, radio, soundtracking, production, promotion, manufacturing, distribution, photography, press relations, artist development, personal management and career goal services for actors/models/bands interested.


www.GuardDogBooks.com  Ever wonder why you have to work two jobs to earn a living?

Saturday, February 18, 2012

2012 ELECTION


This was posted on the my IRS list and I am reposting it due to the importance thereof to all lists.   This is the ONLY solution for the Next President of the United States for those that want liberty and freedom, being Ron Paul.  If you want another totalitarian dictatorship leader such as Obama (and those of his ilk such as Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum Newt Gingrich), then by all means vote for one of these other lying treasonous despots; and,  SHUT UP ABOUT WANTING LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.

Only ONE man, being Ron Paul, has brought up again and again the solemn Duty to OBEY the Oath of Office and the Federal Constitution.  Why do you think none of the other "candidates" (sic) bring this up?  Hopefully you can figure out the correct answer to that question - they have no INTENTION of being bound by any OATH of OFFICE.

The VERY first Statute of the United States was on the Oath of Office of all Federal and State people, wherein if the people that aspire to hold a public Office do not Obey the limitations of the Federal Constitution and the constitutions of the several States (limited delegated of our unalienable rights), THEN, you have nothing more that a despot with no chains to bind him/her to anything.  Not really complicated.

I have attached the very first Statute of the United States - tell me it isn't so
Click here: YouTube - Why Hasn't This Video Gone Viral?

Wake up Americans and Fight taking back our constitutional Republic and send that Den of Vipers in Congress and that Interloper Obama packing into the abyss of Hell.

Ralph

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest!” ~ Anonymous


Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen and then ask yourself, What should be the reward of such sacrifices... If ye love wealth better than freedom, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. ~ Samuel Adams

Friday, January 27, 2012

FEDERAL RESERVE AUDIT..ITS ABOUT TIME...


BREAKING: Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret
Bailouts

Posted By: watcher51445
Date: Thursday, 26-Jan-2012 16:00:09

       Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts
       unelected.org

       The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie
Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.


       What was revealed in the audit was startling:

       $16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland.
From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

       To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into
consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

       In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received
hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

       "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." – Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

       When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self-identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the
Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

       Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and super corporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

       The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

       Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
       Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
       Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
       Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
       Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
       Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
       Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
       Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
       JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
       Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
       UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
       Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
       Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
       Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
       BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
       and many, many more including banks in Belgium of all places

       View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st,
2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

       Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
       FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
       Senator Sander’s Article:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

       www.unelected.org
       =============================================

Friday, January 20, 2012

You lost 1st, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, Your second Amendment Rights next...


Why Grandpa carries a gun.
Please take time to read this and pay particular attention to "A Little Gun History" about half way down.

Why Grandpa carries a gun scroll way down
PEOPLE ASK WHY?

Why Carry a Gun?
 My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

>I don't carry a gun to kill people.
>I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> 
>I don't carry a gun to scare people.
>I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
> 
>I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
>I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
>
>I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
>I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
>
>I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
>I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
>
>I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
>I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
>
>I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
>I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
>
>I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
>I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
>
>I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
>I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
>      
>I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
>I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.      
>
>I don't carry a gun because I love it.
>I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.      
>
>Police protection is an oxymoron.
>Free citizens must protect themselves.
>Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
>      
>Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die
>and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)
>      
>**********************************************
>A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
> 
>In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.      
>From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>       ------------------------------
> 
>In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
>From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.      
> ------------------------------
> 
>Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> ------------------------------      
> 
>China established gun control in 1935.
>From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>       ------------------------------
> 
>Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
>From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.       
> 
>Uganda established gun control in 1970.
>From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.       
> 
>Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
>From1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>       -----------------------------
> 
>Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
>in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
>------------------------------
>
>You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
> 
>Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property
>and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
> 
>Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
> 
>The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
> 
>With guns, we are 'citizens'.      
>Without them, we are 'subjects'.
>
>During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most       Americans were ARMED!
> 
>If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.      
>
>The purpose of fighting is to win.      
> 
>There is no possible victory in defense.      
> 
>The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
> 
>The final weapon is the brain.
> 
>All else is supplemental.      
> 
>SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!      
>SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.      
>SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED
>CRIME RATE OF ANY       CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
> 
>IT'S A NO BRAINER!      
>DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS      
>IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.      
>
>I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
>If you are too, please forward