Liberty or Laws? Dealing with the Current Invasion.

 Essays  Comments Off on Liberty or Laws? Dealing with the Current Invasion.
Jul 142014

The Continental Congress, being the first government of what was to become the United States of America, was able to assemble, without undue influence by the British government, though contrary to the law of the land.  That Congress (like the many Committees of Safety) was created in violation of British law.  The British Parliament often, subsequently, passed specific laws to criminalize some of the actions taken by the colonists.

Ultimately, based upon a political philosophy (see Sons of Liberty #14), a Declaration of Dissolution of Government, more commonly described as the Declaration of Independence from British rule, was signed on July 4, 1776.

The arduous efforts of the colonists, prior to that Declaration, were, without question, based upon illegal acts.  Some of those acts were reacted to by the Parliament, with additional acts, making even more laws, which were soon to also be violated.

Beginning in 1765, with the Stamp Act, destruction of both personal, and government property held by the Crown or its representatives was conducted, in violation of the law.  Personal injury was imposed on individuals, either because of their government office, or because of their violation of certain illegal agreements of non-importation.

The British continued to enact laws making certain activities, construed by the colonists as rights, illegal.  This culminated in the seizure of arms and munitions by the British, as well as the colonists, coming to that final flash point on April 19, 1775, at a country village named Lexington.  Within hours, tens of thousands of militiamen were converging on the area around Boston, ready and willing to break even more laws.

Today, we have many laws that denigrate the rights both fought for, and purchased at great cost, by those colonists of two centuries ago.  We are facing the same proliferation of laws enacted to reduce, restrict, or otherwise deny our rights, redefining some as criminal and thereby subjecting Americans to incarceration and/or loss of property.  We also see that laws enacted to protect our country from invasion, by force under arms, or by use of the “Trojan Horse” whereby invaders are placed within our communities, only needing the access to “cached arms”, are being ignored.  Those arms possibly even held by government entities, to aid an invasion, from within, in order to render moot, and destroy that Great Experiment, known as the United States of America.

Is it possible to reclaim our birthright — that United States of America be returned to its intended form, and proper Glory — if we continue and abide by the very laws that were enacted to destroy it?

In recent discussions, the “rights” of those southern border invaders, under somewhat absurd laws, and contrary to the immigration laws of other countries, seem to have the “weight of law” in the minds of those individuals who should defend this country from invasion; Whether the children should be let in or, whether the parents should be let in, if they accompany their children; Whether we should allow those with provable or admitted criminal backgrounds, because of their youth, to be let in; Whether we should allow those in who have contagious, and often terminal, diseases, though by so doing, we expose our own children to those diseases, and bear the economic burden of care, form entry to grave, of those so infected, to be let in; Are the questions that we must answer, for ourselves, not according to the “law”.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to leave in the hands of the people, the first, and the most important, defense of nation, state, community, and family.  Does that defense require a blessing from a higher authority than the people, themselves?  Laws enacted by the Congress, or rules promulgated by executive agencies, have removed the right of the governors of these states from protecting the states from invasion.  They have not removed that right from the people, regardless of what laws they may enact in an effort to do so.  Reserving the right to determine if it is an invasion to those who have enacted the laws, removing their responsibility to even make such a determination, and leaving it solely in the hands of the Executive, who has steadfastly refused to enforce existing immigration laws, defies logic.  These Executive actions defy the very purpose of the inclusion of Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution, and the Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment to the Constitution

Whatever the government (federal or state) uses to excuse the destructive activity currently going on along our southern border, does not remove from the people the rights embodied in the Constitution.  Simply because Congress ignores our petitions and the state governments acquiesce to the unlawful influence of the federal government does not nullify immigration law.  It is time for the People to enforce those immigration laws.

Do we not, as citizens of the various states of the Union, retain those rights protected by the Constitution?  Do we have the inherent right to repel invasion?  Are we required to restrict our actions simply because the federal government fails to enforce those laws?

Let’s ask ourselves some hard questions:

  • If armed foreign invaders were coming into our country, do we have the inherent right to protect our state and country? 
  • If invaders, with the full potential of coming into your country, or state, unarmed, having arms readily accessible to them, by “law” (no criminal record in this country) or from stored arms caches, do you have the right to shoot them?
  • Do you have an obligation to risk your life to separate those who are a potential threat from those who are not a threat, or only to endeavor to not shoot those who appear not to be a threat?

Let’s look at the war strategy of the federal government in the non-wars that they are fighting, throughout the Middle East.  Smart bombs and missiles do not discriminate between good and bad, though we have this corrupt government insisting that we must abide by their laws, while their practices defy bounds of decency.  The federal government’s wartime strategy is to shoot everyone, indiscriminately, around a single designated threat.  Are we allowed to use the same strategy to protect our own borders?

The federal government has violated state, federal, and international law by providing arms, knowing that they will cross both international boundaries and go into the hands of the drug cartels, or possibly to caches on this side of the border.  They have now opened the borders in an attempt render our sovereign nation status moot.  It should be no surprise to anyone that arms and ammunition provided by the federal government has metastasized into wholesale violence in both of those nations.  It does appear that the federal government is more than willing to allow those arms to be turned against American citizens, all the while pretending that we are blind to its actions, and will only see a “Humanitarian Crises” involving children, using Main Stream Media propaganda to berate Americans for being cruel and heartless because we insist the laws be enforced.

We are left with the choice of Liberty and our Responsibility, as intended by the Founders, or, laws, dictated by “the Crown”, which are self-serving and contrary to OUR Constitution, our rightful sovereign nation status, and  individually, the right to the fruits of our labor.  We have a decision to make, much the same as the decision made by those who bequeathed this great nation to their posterity, to apply the Laws of Nature, rather than the edicts of kings and princes, so that we may restore Constitutional Government, protecting our nation from assured destruction.

Has the time come for us to determine to break those laws, for failure to do so will, most certainly, lead to the destruction of our country?

Suggested Reading:
Information Blackout
Illegal Immigration: Diseases
MSM cover-up

This article can be found on line at Liberty or Laws? — Dealing with the Current Invasion

The past is infinitely important. However, it pales in importance to the future.

Negative Nominal Interest Rates: Highway to a Cashless, Statist Hell

 Essays  Comments Off on Negative Nominal Interest Rates: Highway to a Cashless, Statist Hell
Jul 092014

Judica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta.

Mario Draghi, chief psychopath of the European Central Bank went full-stupid on June 5th and announced mandated NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES on the excess reserves of European banks held and the European Central Bank  (which is the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.).  What does this mean?  It means that when a European commercial bank deposits excess cash reserves with the ECB, the commercial bank must PAY the ECB to store that money.  The commercial bank does not earn any interest income on that money, it in fact has a percentage of its deposit CONFISCATED from its account every month by the ECB.As you can see in the article linked above and countless others, the publicly stated rationale behind this negative interest rate paradigm is “stimulus”.  If the banks have to pay to store cash, they will instead lend their excess cash out to customers rather than have a percentage  confiscated every month.  This is utter bee-ess on multiple levels.  These top-tier central bankers know that negative interest rates have NOTHING to do with stimulus, and will, in fact, lead to exactly the opposite.  In fact, they know that the inevitable outcome of negative interest rates is the complete nationalization of the banking sector and total governmental control of all capital flows – which means today a CASHLESS ECONOMY.  Yup.  If you’re interested, I’ll walk you through the chain of events and differentiate between the propaganda that will be used to justify this evil and the reality of how the world actually works.Banks today are sitting on huge cash reserves because the economy sucks and banks have rightly discerned that lending money into a sucky economy is NOT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS.  If the economy sucks, then lending money to Joe Schmoe to start a business is likely going to end up in default.  So, if YOU were a bank and your choice was between losing one percent by depositing money at the Central Bank at negative interest, or losing FIFTEEN percent on your loan portfolio because the economy sucks and a high percentage of your borrowers would default on their loans, which would you do?  Well, duh.  You would opt for the SMALLER loss of ONLY one percent, and you would continue to hold cash reserves and be VERY stingy with your loan portfolio.

Okay.  That’s easy to understand, right?  Well, the propaganda coming from the Banksters and willingly regurgitated by the useful idiot class is that negative interest rates will absolutely, positively result in increased lending by banks and thus “economic stimulus”.  And bear in mind, they have been bleating EXACTLY the same line of crap in regards to “quantitative easing”.  They have been saying for YEARS that all of the money printing done by the Federal Reserve and European Central Bank would provide “stimulus” in the form of increased lending.  And, as we all know, that didn’t happen.  All that has happened is that the Banksters have taken the “new money” printed by the Central Banks and pumped it into the stock and derivatives markets, thus blowing a massive, unprecedented bubble.  But Joe Schmoe still can’t get a loan to open a business.  The evil, malignant Banksters KNOW that the whole stimulus meme is a lie.  The useful idiots are so indescribably stupid that they can’t comprehend simple logical progressions even when they have a current experiential dataset right in front of their faces that clearly demonstrates the fallacy: not only does QE and other forms of synthetic “liquidity boosting”NOT stimulate the economy, it actually depresses it even more.

So now banks will be even more incentivized to offload cash by plowing it into relatively “safe” paper that has a higher interest yield than the negative rate at the Central Bank.  What does this imply?  Increased demand for Sovereign debt (bonds issued by nations), and derivatives on Sovereign debt.  Now here is where it gets positively sick.  Very soon, banks will be able to borrow money from the “discount window” at the Central Bank at either zero, or at a NEGATIVE rate.  Think about that.  The Central Bank, because the interest rate is negative, actually pays banks to borrow money from them.  And this utter PERVERSITY is the root of the whole satanic mess.  The first mover in all of this is the evil, perverse Central Bank.  The Central Banks are completely content to pay banks to borrow money – a perversity – because the Central Bank doesn’t give a shit.  It can just “PRINT” as much money as it “needs”.  And, as we have discussed at length, the “printing” of money, money being a proxy for the human capacity to labor and create through time, is simply the leveraging of HUMAN LIFE, specifically at this late hour not just the life of every man, woman and child alive today OUTSIDE the oligarch class, but now generations upon generations of human beings who DO NOT YET EXIST, and are thus utterly powerless to object or mount a counter-revolt.

Okay, so now Bank A goes to the discount window and borrows “new money” from the Central Bank at NEGATIVE one percent, which means the loans generates a yield TO THE BORROWER.  Then, Bank A turns around and plows that money, which is already generating a yield in and of itself, into French Sovereign bonds that yield 1.5%.  Bank A does this because it is certain that France will never be allowed to default – the Central Bank will just keep printing money and printing money to keep France (or any other country) from defaulting on its debt.  So, What is the total yield to Bank A?  The one percent yield on the money borrowed at negative interest from the Central Bank, PLUS the 1.5% yield on the French bonds = +2.5%.  Do you see why this dynamic INCREASES DEAMND for sovereign debt?  It incentivizes governments not to PAY DOWN their debt, but to in fact EXPAND their balance sheets by going deeper into debt.  And because the demand for sovereign debt is increased because there is more money chasing after it, the interest rates are driven DOWN (a lower interest rate is the same thing as higher price on bonds), and thus the politicians tell the people that not only is more government debt good, it is extremely good because “the interest rate is so low”.  And the glassy-eyed sheeple nod passively and return to their tee-vee shows.

This will also increase demand for derivatives on sovereign debt (i.e. repurchase agreements and credit default swaps), again, because the banks are quite confident that the Central Banks will never permit a sovereign default.  And who, pray tell, are the main counterparties on almost all sovereign debt derivatives?   J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutschebank.  Uh-huh.  And where do ALL of the people come from who populate the Central Banks, both in the U.S. and in Europe?  J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutschebank. Uh-huh.

Kids, this isn’t terribly complicated.  Really.

Now, to YOU, the people who PAY FOR ALL OF THIS.

Negative interest rates will be a cost to YOU is two ways.  First, the obvious: you will have a confiscatory tax levied on your bank deposits every month – that’s what a negative interest rate is, sweetie.  It is a TAX on the PEOPLE, NOT the banks, because the banks will pass through to the customers the cost for the bank to store reserves at the Central Banks PLUS a margin.  Next, in an economy that is perceived to be relatively stronger or safer (of which the former United States is still at the top of the list because of its size, both economically and militarily) capital will flow IN to that economy, thus causing ASSET BUBBLES and CONSUMER PRICE INFLATION.  Been to the grocery store lately?  Looked into buying any farm ground lately?  Uh-huh.  So when consumer prices inflate, what do banks do to interest rates in order to cover the resulting increased risk in lending to consumers who now are having a much more difficult time making ends meet?  Yep.  They RAISE interest rates to borrowers.  And so therefore a negative interest rate at the Central Bank not only does not stimulate the economy, it increases the contraction and deepens the depression (because let’s face it, if your economy is at the point that the Central Bank is going NEGATIVE on interest rates, honey, yo’ ass is already in a DEPRESSION, not a recession).

Now to the big ugly.  Since the Central Bank is, despite any and all lying propaganda to the contrary, a government entity backed fully by the government and thus ultimately backed by the people, and since the Sovereign bond market is also a pure function of the government and thus ultimately backed by the people, when banks receive payment on both their capital borrowed from the Central Bank at negative interest AND receive a positive interest yield on their government bond holdings, that means that THE PEOPLE are PAYING THE BANKS… ON BOTH SIDES.

This is a backdoor way of confiscating collateral from the people and using it to RECAPITALIZE THE BANKS.  And also pay the bankster oligarchs’ eight and nine-figure salaries and compensation packages, which, let’s be honest, is their top priority.  

So now you may be thinking that this will cause a feedback loop to occur and rates will continue to be driven more and more negative.  Yes.  Absolutely.  Because the Central Bank will have to keep adjusting its rate down to stay “more negative” than the Sovereign bond and other money markets.  What happens when customer deposit rates go sufficiently negative so as to compel normal people to withdraw their cash from the banks and hold it in cash?  The answer is, the oligarchs will enact government policies outlawing the use of cash.  Think I’m crazy?  Have you tried paying your car insurance bill with cash lately?  Cash.  As in hundred dollar bills.  How about your phone or utility bill?  Guess what.  You can’t.

One of the big reasons why I had to move into the “Van Down by the River” was because I simply COULD NOT FUNCTION using cash.  When I was foreclosed upon because I could not provide the bank with a tax return (because I have declared a tax strike), I began investigating possible rental scenarios in preparing to move.  Kids, you CANNOT rent an apartment “above the table”, pay the utilities on said apartment, insure a vehicle and scores of other necessary expenses in the former U.S. using cash today.  Between IRS liens and mortgage foreclosures, my credit score is destroyed, which also disqualifies above-board rental.  If you think that cash controls and the move to outlaw the use of cash is crazytalk, just stop and think about all of the myriad ways that IT IS ALREADY IMPOSSIBLE to pay with cash.  We’re already 75% of the way there.

So, there would be increased economic depression causing new lending to crater and thus squeezing commercial banks’ margins and causing them to demand a way to dump ALL consumer debt, including business loans, car loans and credit cards, off on the government in the form of guarantees (this is precisely what already happened in the real estate market with almost all mortgages being bundled and dumped onto Fannie and Freddie).  Couple this with the confiscatory tax on deposits AND the paying of banks to borrow from the discount window by the government (aka the people) in order to recapitalize the banks, and what you have is nothing less than the COMPLETE NATIONALIZATION OF THE BANKING SECTOR.  This will inevitably require the outlawing of sovereign currency (cash), which will inevitably lead to the REJECTION of the sovereign currency, and the emergence of a “black” alternative.  We are talking, ladies and gentlemen, about nothing less that the final, complete destruction of the economy, which will inevitably lead to the total collapse of the extant government and what scattered vestiges remain of the Rule of Law.

This, and nothing less than this, has been, is, and will continue to be the explicit goal of the oligarchy that has already overthrown the former United States.  This is part and parcel of the Cloward Piven Strategy.  And it is all happening RIGHT NOW, and given the ignorance and cowardice of the broad populace will not be stopped excluding supernatural intervention, of which we are utterly undeserving.  Get ready, and don’t you dare say you weren’t warned.  And please, spare me any droolingly stupid emails telling me how lending money at interest is evil.  A positive interest rate is ESSENTIAL.  What is immoral, and what actually constitutes the lion’s share of USURY, is UNSECURED lending with no collateral against it.  Well, actually there IS collateral against an unsecured loan:  the future LIFE and productive capacity of the borrower.  THAT is usury.  All Central Bank money printing is therefore USURIOUS because, as we discussed above, it is simply the leveraging of the lives of the people, both present AND future, who comprise the sovereign entity that backs the money of said nationstate.  In other words:  YOU and your descendants for multiple generations hence.

I hope this helps you understand the utterly critical and thoroughly evil concept of negative interest rates.

Ann Barnhardt