Behind The Woodshed 3rd year Anniversary at Real Liberty Media
At the Situationally Aware Action Oriented Intelligence Center
The Victory Against You in the Silent War is Your Silence
Be The Porcupine
Protect Your Granted Rights
- Sign The Petition – Please
From the Jefferson Mining District front page, Click on the petition link. Thank you very much for defending your property and that of future generations, no the real ones, and additionally, for helping Jefferson Mining District help you.
Remember Benghazi – Latest Red Herring
- Col. Andrew Wood: U.S. Rescue Team Was on Its Way to Benghazi, But Ordered To Turn Back
Col. Andrew Wood had once commanded a Special Forces anti-terrorism team protecting Ambassador Chis Stevens and other diplomats in Libya. In October of 2012, Woods told Congress that one month before the attacks in Benghazi, his team had been removed from Libya by the Obama administration, despite the numerous warnings of impending terrorist attacks. Wood told Attkisson that Special Forces (the ones mentioned in the “spinning up” email from Jeremy Bash) were on their way to Benghazi, but were ordered to turn back.
“Those individuals I know loaded aircraft and got on their way to Benghazi to respond to that incident. They were not allowed to cross the border as per protocol until they got approval from the commander in chief,” Wood explained. “That authority has to come from him or they’re not allowed to enter the country.”
Attkisson told Malzberg, “This is something that the president and the White House has steadfastly denied, but there’s now what I would call an overwhelming body of evidence that leads us to believe that somebody stopped a number of teams and potential rescuers from entering Libya or going to Benghazi to help while those attacks were underway.”
“They could have gotten there before the last two Americans died,” Attkisson noted. “Those attacks went on for eight hours.”
The email from Jeremy Bash to Jacob Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, came at 7:19 pm Washington time.
Attkisson notes in Part One of “Rescue Interrupted” that “the White House has refused to detail the involvement of President Obama — the Commander-in-Chief — while Americans were under attack.
- Marshals: Innocent People Placed On ‘Watch List’ To Meet Quota
You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they’re reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.
The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they’re required to submit at least one report a month. If they don’t, there’s no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.
“Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft … and they did nothing wrong,” said one federal air marshal.
These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.
“Do these reports have real life impacts on the people who are identified as potential terrorists?” 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski asked.
“Absolutely,” a federal air marshal replied.
7NEWS obtained an internal Homeland Security document defining an SDR as a report designed to identify terrorist surveillance activity.
“When you see a decision like this, for these reports, who loses here?” Kovaleski asked.
“The people we’re supposed to protect — the American public,” an air marshal said.
Remedy For Government Overreach
- Chat Summary
The following chat is memorialized for anyone wanting a glimpse into the subject matter of remedy for Gov overreach:
Chatter – comments:
– The BLM controls 91% of Nev and 49% of Calif
– BLM and Forest Service and National Parks control about 85% of Utard
– the federal government shouldn’t own any land
– and all the water they claim
behindthewoodshed2: That Fed agency control is only where it is because locally people don’t keep the oppression in check through existing mechanisms.
All water not claimed through lawful appropriation is invalid. If the State takes it, that’s a fiduciary breach of law.
– who would be the trustee?
behindthewoodshed2: The State is the trustee.
– and the beneficiary?
behindthewoodshed2: The Appropriator
– big gov?
behindthewoodshed2: no the people.
– so they can steal from the people the land they live on or the people and the state?
behindthewoodshed2: it’s in the Lode act of 1866 http://www.grantedright.com/ The LAW tab Section 9.
right now the states are committing a breach.
– by claiming the land for themselves?
— just like the FED
behindthewoodshed2: The State’s were required to fight the feds when the agency encroached on the disposals.
– you’re being too nice again Hal
— theft is theft in the eyes of the law
— there is no remedy, who am I kidding
behindthewoodshed2: Well, we also called it treason in our lawsuit https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/1:2013cv01147/112767/
I’m just trying to convey some sources of accurate description here.
– how does that work? Arrest the arrestors for not arresting?
behindthewoodshed2: So this is the latest coordination response which was part of a presentation to a county board meeting which the commissioners voted to require the DA to investigate the crimes alleged against the State agencies.
behindthewoodshed2: And for the first time, we are using a mechanism in the county to arrest crimes.
* Together with the JMD v Kitz lawsuit, that DA is looking at being a constitutional criminal himself.
** So how we go about regaining some measure of control is understanding better how the system works and get it to working. again
*** That all presented, I reiterate, the reason the Fed agency have the type of control they do is because We The People forgot and haven’t kept them in their lawful place.
Our Backyard Check out http://grantedright.com! This land is OUR land.
Declaring Martian Law
- The Government of Mars Is Already Being Planned: A Glimpse at Martian Law
As NASA, tech billionaires, and other nonprofit organizations all vie to colonize the stars — with a particular eye on Mars as humanity’s next home — researchers in Seattle have recently offered a glimpse of what government on the Red Planet could look like.
As far back as 2010 — outlined in the U.S. National Space Policy and then given the budgetary green light by the NASA Authorization Act — the United States has advanced the idea that Americans could be living on Mars by the 2030s. A major milestone toward this end would be streamlining the ability to land human beings on an asteroid, which the space agency hopes to accomplish by 2025.
This is around the same time that Mars One, the Netherlands-based nonprofit research group whose stated goal is to establish a human colony on Mars by 2027, is slated to start rocketing the hardware needed to construct and maintain said colony in the Red Planet’s direction.
“A habitable settlement will await the first crew before they depart Earth,” Mars One says in its mission statement. “The hardware needed will be sent to Mars in the years ahead of the humans. This unmanned mission is currently scheduled for 2024.”
Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire CEO of Tesla Motors and private aerospace manufacturer SpaceX — and the man whose timetable for putting humans on Mars beats even that of Mars One — has long seen the colonization of the Red Planet as a means to save the species.
“I think there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multi-planetary,” Musk toldAeon magazine when asked why we should focus on Mars when there are so many problems facing people here on Earth, “in order to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen, in which case being poor or having a disease would be irrelevant, because humanity would be extinct.”
Even Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, whose private aerospace company Blue Origin is focused primarily on moving heavy industry from Earth to outer space, says we absolutely should and will colonize Mars, “because it’s cool.”
But as more and more time, energy and capital are devoted to establishing a human presence on Mars, many are asking how the body governing such a colony will function.
One research group in Seattle, the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, has recently penned a report addressing that very question.
The report, titled “A Pragmatic Approach to Sovereignty on Mars” and published in Space Policy, borrows from three already established treaties — the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), the Outer Space Treaty (OST), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Using 1967’s Outer Space Treaty as a foundation, the researchers targeted the potential problems that could arise as citizens from different countries begin to cohabitate on a new planet — namely, how much power should a central governing structure possess, how to handle the inevitable disputes that will arise, and how resource rights should be allocated and protected.
The governing body proposed by the Blue Marble Institute is called the Mars Secretariat. As the name implies, this body would be a weak central authority whose purview would primarily be administrative — record maintenance, secretarial duties, and the like. Martian inhabitants themselves would wield significant local power.
Legally, however, this power would be derived from inhabitants’ host nations, “with conflicts to be resolved diplomatically or through a temporary tribunal system composed of representatives of other Mars colonies.”
As for resources, the report proposes — for the early days of colonization, anyway — that claims be limited to around 100 km parcels of land. Colonists within that zone would have all economic rights to the resources in that parcel, though they would have no authority to prevent others from landing, or even building habitats, within that border.
“The right of peaceful passage through exclusive economic zones is…patterned after UNCLOS,” the report states, “which also restricts the degree of control that a colony can exert over the zone in which it operates.”
The OST states that “the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind.” To this end, the report further proposes the establishment of “planetary parks” and a “Mars tax.”
The Tangled Web Wove
- How The UK Could Be Forced To Remain In The EU After A Brexit Win
If Britain votes to leave the EU on Thursday, it’ll be final. Irreversible. Irrevocable. No appeals. No second chances.
“Out is out,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told reporters Wednesday.
“You can’t jump out of the airplane and then clamber back into the cockpit,” is how British Prime Minister David Cameron put it in a radio interview a few hours earlier.
But what if a vote to leave weren’t really that final or dramatic? Some experts are wondering whether Britain can ever really free itself from the European Union — even if voters strongly endorse hitting the eject button. Others say it’s not out of the question that Brits could find themselves going back to the ballot box in a few years’ time if buyer’s remorse sets in.
“The EU is a bit like the Hotel California in the Eagles song,” said Tim Oliver, a fellow at the London School of Economics’ IDEAS foreign policy think tank. “You can check out anytime but you never really leave.”
Much of the uncertainty stems from the ambiguity about what a British exit, or Brexit, really means. Abandoning Europe could mean anything from a sweeping withdrawal from EU institutions to more limited opt-outs which could leave major pillars of European integration, such as free movement of labor, untouched.
“‘Leave’ could mean a million different things,” Oliver said, giving Britain’s political establishment considerable scope to loiter in Europe’s lobby as euroskeptics argue over where the exits are.
- Germany worries France, others could follow UK in leaving EU
Germany is worried that France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Hungary could also seek to leave the European Union after Britain’s vote to quit the bloc, German newspaper Die Welt said on Friday, citing a finance ministry strategy paper.
The strategy paper recommended that Germany, in coordination with the EU, offer Britain “constructive exit negotiations” aimed at making the UK an “associated partner country,” the newspaper reported.
It estimated Germany’s contribution to the annual EU budget could rise by 3 billion euros once Britain exited the group.
- What’s after
Grexit, Departugal, Italeave, Fruckoff, Czechout, Oustria, Finish, Slovlong, Latervia, Byegium, unitil EU becomes Germlonely.
- BREXIT – The New Modern-Nationalism is Global Governance
It comes as little surprise that Britain has voted to leave the European Union. The economic and geopolitical shifts taking place throughout the international order are aligned with a resurgence of modern-nationalism. The expansion of powers related to both China and Russia as members of the BRICS group is ensuring a socioeconomic and geopolitical realignment of the Eurasian continent.
It was inevitable that Britain would leave the EU at some point. The failed American strategies to overthrow Assad in Syria and gain access to the industrial base in Eastern Ukraine were meant to isolate Russia and China from Europe and allow for a continuation of US dominance on the Eurasian peninsula.
Since both of those strategies have stalled and/or failed the US has been forced into a position where it must accept some of the geopolitical losses and realignments.
“The world of today is experiencing profound and complex changes. As important actors in a multipolar world, the EU and China share responsibility for promoting peace, prosperity and sustainable development for the benefit of all. They agree to continue to consolidate and develop their strategic partnership to the benefit of both sides, based on the principles of equality, respect and trust. The EU reaffirms its respect for China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. China reaffirms its support to EU integration.”
The paper introduces a strategy to consolidate macroeconomic policy and geopolitical mandates across the Eurasian continent. It is segmented into the following categories:
- Peace and Security
- Trade and Investment
- Industry and Information
- Transport and Infrastructure
- Sustainable Development
- Science, Technology and Innovation
- Space and Aerospace
- Climate Change and Environmental Protection
- Regional Policy
- Social Progress
- Public Policy
- Cooperation on Global Development
- People-to-People Exchanges
- Culture, Education and Youth
- Facilitation of People-to-People Exchanges
Most readers will recognize the common language of global governance. The EU and China, along with the United States, are all aligned with the global governance mandates of the United Nations. Inefficiency within the UN and other global institutions has manufactured the pretext to revamp these institutions and repackage the mandates for the international masses.
As we reviewed in the post How Rothschild Inc. Saved Donald Trump – A Multi-Decade Strategy to Transform America, the rising modern-nationalism in America, which is represented by Donald Trump, is in fact creating the environment where the US population will accept global governance mandates under the pretext of a new form of modern-nationalism.
The BREXIT vote is achieving the same function in Great Britain. The forthcoming demand from other EU nations for similar referendums will be addressed by changes to the EU framework which will further align it with the more macro global governance mandates. Such realignment will consist of each of the EU members returning to the domestic use of national currencies.
- LAPD Arrest 81-Year-Old For Speaking ‘Off-Topic’ At Public Forum
“Arresting Free Speech…what are they hiding?
“Tut Hayes, an 81-year-old Black Man, is arrested while giving ‘public testimony.’ He is said to be ‘off-topic’ within seconds of speaking and summarily dragged from the podium. Mr. Hayes is a long time fixture in Los Angeles and his legal knowledge, especially regarding the Ralph M. Brown Act, is untouchable. This is dangerous and deadly behavior by the #LAPD and we must resist allowing their illegal behavior to continue.
“Ironically enough the Commission President is #MattJohnson who simply watched a man that could be his father/grandfather get dragged out on his knees. We will not rest, we will resist!”
In the nine months since Matt Johnson became the president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, there have been six arrests of black people for free speech. This is the second time Tut Hayes had been arrested for free speech under Matt Johnson’s reign. Mr. Hayes speaks every week at the police commission meeting, reminding the commission specifically what the law says about free speech at open public meetings.
- First Amendment Project
- Man who claimed he escaped Auschwitz admits story a lie
A 91-year-old Pennsylvania man who has for years lectured to school groups and others about what he said were his experiences at Auschwitz now says he was never a prisoner at the German death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland.
Joseph Hirt, of Adamstown, made the admission in a letter to LNP newspaper Wednesday. He said he used poor judgment and faulty reasoning in trying to tell the story of those affected by the Nazis.
“I am writing today to apologize publicly for harm caused to anyone because of my inserting myself into the descriptions of life in Auschwitz,” Hirt wrote. “I was not a prisoner there. I did not intend to lessen or overshadow the events which truly happened there by falsely claiming to have been personally involved.”
Hirt’s admission came weeks after his story of escaping from Auschwitz was questioned by Andrew Reid, a history teacher in Turin, New York. Reid and several students attended an April presentation by Hirt and the educator concluded that many of the speaker’s claims didn’t add up.
He launched his own investigation, which culminated in a 25-page letter he sent to media outlets and organizations that had written about or hosted Hirt. Those organizations unknowingly perpetuated “his false claims to an even greater audience,” Reid said.
Among other findings, his research indicated that the identification number tattooed on Hirt’s arm was actually that of another prisoner from 1944.
Right To Silence & Free From Association?
- Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your Home Computer
In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed today, a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual’s computer.
This decision is the latest in, and perhaps the culmination of, a series of troubling decisions in prosecutions stemming from the FBI’s investigation of Playpen—a Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computer’s “Host name”; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.
Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we’ve been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBI’s investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.
The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. To say the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it’s also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal.
- BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Break the Law to Enforce the Law
In another devastating blow to the 4th Amendment, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of an alleged crime can be used against a defendant even if police did something inappropriate or even illegal to obtain it.
In a split 5-3 decision, the justices voted to reinstate the drug-related convictions of Joseph Edward Strieff. In the case of Strieff, he was illegally detained during a “concededly unconstitutional detention,” which eventually led to the discovery of drugs inside his vehicle.
In Strieff’s case, a trial court judge later found that the officer did not have enough evidence to initially stop and question him. But the judge ruled that Strieff’s subsequent arrest on an outstanding traffic warrant justified the search — implying that the use of criminal behavior to catch criminal behavior is just.
The Utah Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the drug evidence was admissible at trial, but, in a moment of logic, the Utah Supreme Court last year reversed that decision.
The Utah Supreme Court noted in its January 2015 decision that the case presented “a gap of substantial significance” in terms of prior rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on Fourth Amendment issues, and that other courts that have addressed the issue have come to “substantially different conclusions” regarding search and seizure law.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule allows criminal defendants to suppress “fruit of the poisonous tree” — that is, evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. The reason this rule exists is due to the obvious conflict of interests in cops breaking the law to enforce the law.
However, thanks to Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court, that is exactly what will happen now. Police have essentially been given a free pass to violate the rights of individuals — just so long as they find evidence of a ‘crime.’
- Supreme Court Knocks A Little More Off The 4th Amendment; Gives Cops Another Way To Salvage Illegal Searches
from the endlessly-forgiving dept
The Supreme Court hasn’t necessarily been kind to the Fourth Amendment in recent years. While it did deliver the Riley decision, which instituted a warrant requirement for searches of cellphones, it has generally continued to expand the ability of police to stop and search anyone for almost any reason.
Its Heien decision said it was perfectly fine for police officers to remain ignorant of the laws they’re enforcing by allowing them to continue making bogus traffic stops predicated on nonexistent laws. The Rodriguez decision at least prohibits officers from artificially extending stops to bring out drug dogs or beg for consent to search a vehicle, but it doesn’t do anything to prevent the bogus stops in the first place.
With its just-released Strieff decision, the Supreme Court — in a 5-3 ruling — extends the reach of bogus stops/searches to pedestrians. To get to where we are now, you have to go back a decade:
The case, Utah v. Strieff, started in 2006, when the Salt Lake City police got an anonymous tip reporting drug activity at a house. An officer monitored the house for several days and became suspicious at the number of people he saw entering and leaving. When one of those people, Edward Strieff, left to walk to a nearby convenience store, the officer stopped him and asked for his identification.
A routine check revealed that Mr. Strieff had an outstanding “small traffic warrant.” The officer arrested him based on that earlier warrant, searched him and found a bag of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in his pockets.
The evidence obtained should have been suppressed because the officer had no reason to stop Strieff and demand his ID. The state of Utah has already conceded this was an illegal stop. But it has appealed it all the way to the nation’s top court because it wants the fruits of the illegal search to remain unsuppressed and, more importantly, the government wants the precedent. It got it. From the opinion [PDF]:
To enforce the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” this Court has at times required courts to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional police conduct. But the Court has also held that, even when there is a Fourth Amendment violation, this exclusionary rule does not apply when the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent benefits. In some cases, for example, the link between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence is too attenuated to justify suppression. The question in this case is whether this attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. We hold that the evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.
Working backwards from the arrest and search incident to the arrest, the court finds that the warrant the officer knew nothing about before stopping Strieff is all the connective tissue lower courts will need to refuse suppression of evidence obtained from similar illegal stops. The majority says this reverse engineering is perfectly fine because it probably won’t be abused — and even if it is, those whose rights are violated can always lawyer up and file a civil suit.
Strieff’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, neither Officer Fackrell’s purpose nor the flagrancy of the violation rises to a level of misconduct warranting suppression. Officer Fackrell’s purpose was not to conduct a suspicionless fishing expedition but was to gather information about activity inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs. Strieff conflates the standard for an illegal stop with the standard for flagrancy, which requires more than the mere absence of proper cause. Second, it is unlikely that the prevalence of outstanding warrants will lead to dragnet searches by police. Such misconduct would expose police to civil liability and, in any event, is already accounted for by Brown’s “purpose and flagrancy” factor.
The majority acts as though this sort of thing is an isolated incident — a unicorn in the pantheon of law enforcement. Justice Sotomayor’s angry dissent tears this argument apart, pointing out how the majority has just given law enforcement a permission slip for illegal searches while claiming this is a narrow reading of a one-off incident.
The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.
The majority’s decision pretends outstanding warrants won’t encourage police fishing expeditions. But to mix a couple of metaphors, law enforcement agencies have access to massive honeypots.
These factors confirm that the officer in this case discovered Strieff ’s drugs by exploiting his own illegal conduct. The officer did not ask Strieff to volunteer his name only to find out, days later, that Strieff had a warrant against him. The officer illegally stopped Strieff and immediately ran a warrant check. The officer’s discovery of a warrant was not some intervening surprise that he could not have anticipated. Utah lists over 180,000 misdemeanor warrants in its database, and at the time of the arrest, Salt Lake County had a “backlog of outstanding warrants” so large that it faced the “potential for civil liability.”
This opinion gives officers the option to demand ID from every pedestrian they encounter in order to run a warrant check. There no longer needs to be a reason for the stop. Officers can work backwards by performing the stop, running an ID and, finally, arresting a person and performing a search if the database returns a hit. If you want a police state, you’ve got one, as Sotomayor points out.
By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.
We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.
The logic of the majority’s decision — now the law of the land — says even a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket is a free pass for officers to perform a search of your person. It sounds innocuous but it isn’t. You’ll be stopped and not allowed to leave. You may be pushed up against a wall or bent over the hood of a police car. Your personal belongings will be taken, laid out, and cataloged. You may also have your genitalia and bodily orifices probed and inspected. And, most likely, all of this will happen in public in full view of passersby. A search is an invasion, but the Supreme Court’s decision treats as a minor inconvenience — and one whose illegality can be excused after the fact.
Hot Diggity Doge
The Weekend War Report
The DOGE OF WAR
Unleash the Power of the DOGE OF WAR
Please Donate to RLM
In This Doge Eat Doge World
- The people know that they have created this farce and financed it with their own taxes (consent), but they would rather knuckle under than be the hypocrite.Factor VI – Cattle
Those who will not use their brains are no better off than those who have no brains, and so this mindless school of jelly-fish, father, mother, son, and daughter, become useful beasts of burden or trainers of the same.
- Mr. Rothschild’s Energy Discovery
What Mr. Rothschild  had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is “when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you.”
The Law of War
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Where Not Throwing Oppression Off, You Live Either Under an Occupation or by Conquest.
The Choice and Responsibility are Yours
United We Strike
Behind The Woodshed for that practical education & hard but necessary dose of reality.
Spread The Word Behind The Woodshed.