Dear Friends, dear Britons, dear lovers of free speech.
I assume you all are lovers of free speech because you have come to Speakers’ Corner.
You might not understand all the fuss happening today around this speech. Honestly, I don’t understand it either.
My name is Martin Sellner. I am an Austrian patriot, and at the moment, I’m sitting in a detention cell in Colnbrook Bypass near Heathrow. My smartphone was taken and my girlfriend Brittany was separated from me. I currently don’t know where she is. We will be deported on Sunday.
Five minutes ago, they unlocked our cells and my fellow inmates are gathering in the prison wing. They are mostly illegals and eastern European criminals.
What brought me into this situation? What was my crime?
My crime was that I wanted to be here with you, to speak at Speakers’ Corner.
But let’s start with the beginning. I was invited by UKIP to present my movement at an event last Autumn. I represent Generation Identity — a patriotic European youth movement that is raising awareness about mass immigration and Islamisation.
Far-left people call us right-wing, people who want to shut free speech down call us ‘fascist’, and folks who hate their own culture call us ‘racist’.
In reality, we are just a group of young patriots fed up with the system, the mainstream press and lying politicians. We use peaceful activism to make our voices heard, and contrary to our friends on the radical left, who are probably swarming you right now, we never wear masks.
From Paris to Rome, from Vienna to London, we fight peacefully but without compromise for our freedom, our homelands, and our identity!
This is what I wanted to speak about in Autumn. But the conference was cancelled due to threats from the radical left. The venue would not take the risk. So they rescheduled it for March, this time keeping the venue secret — but again the terror of the left prevailed, and the venue dropped out.
But this time I did not want to let them win! It was about principles! (Also, our flights were already booked.)
My last refuge was Speakers’ Corner. I remembered my mother telling me about that special place when I was a child. It seemed almost magical to me. A place where everyone, without exception, could just stand on a box and start to speak to those who wanted to listen. I have always loved this tradition of Speakers’ Corner, which seemed very British to me.
But I came only to see that this tradition — the tradition of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom — is dead.
Your Country is blocking you from challenging ideas from the outside. This is a disgrace to our democracy!
I should be speaking in neat, warm a conference room right now, and you should be sitting in comfortable chairs. Instead, I’m in my cell and you are on the street in a standoff with the enemies of freedom of speech.
And this is very telling! Today there is a war going on for our freedom of speech. This war is being fought on the streets, by you!
Every man and woman showing her face today, standing shoulder to shoulder, is standing up against a new totalitarianism that has been growing for far too long. You can be proud of yourself. You might not even agree with me on every point — you are simply giving a statement that I should have the right to speak my mind freely.
I would love to be among you now. They prevented me from it. They locked up the speaker, but I know that the speech will find a way through the iron bars. It will find a way to you and you are going to hear what you government so desperately wants to protect you from.
Those words which they consider more harmful to you then rape gangs or terrorists who are let into your country again and again.
I’m going to tell you something nobody has told you before. It’s the biggest, most obvious secret of our media our politicians and our powerholders: People of Britain, you are being replaced.
There has always been immigration in your history. People coming in, assimilating. But what’s happening today is different: You are being replaced by massive Muslim immigration.
You see it everywhere: in London, in Manchester, but also already in the little countryside towns. A big replacement is going on.
And let me tell you: your politicians have no plan, no vision and no idea how to deal with the problems that come along. Problems like you have seen in Telford, Rotherham, and on Westminster Bridge.
All across Europe, there is a shadow hanging over our heads. The French are whispering about in the Metro, the Germans murmuring about it when they feel unwatched, Italians look left and right, and if nobody is listening they tell you: “I don’t feel at home anymore in my street. We are becoming foreigners in our own country.”
And again and again I hear: “We are not allowed to talk about it.”
And that’s the bizarre drama of the ‘Strange death of Europe’. We are being replaced, conquered by radical Islam, and we are now allowed to talk about it!
Dear Britons, defenders of free speech. Out of my cell in Colnbrook, I want to ask you something. Be honest and raise your hands.
Who among of you has ever been in the following situation: You grab a beer after work, or you are visiting your girlfriend’s parents for the first time, or you meet other children’s parents at school — and suddenly the conversation moves to politics: radical Islam, immigration.
Who of you in this very moment was faced with the decision between speaking his mind and facing problems, or complying and staying silent?
Raise your hands and be honest.
I will not be able to see the results, but every single hand is too much. This amount of fear should not exist in a society. Speech that has social costs and severe consequences is no longer free. It has a price — and our Government and the Antifa are working everyday to raise that price.
No freedom of speech means no democracy. In front of our very eyes this country is becoming a tyranny, shutting all debates about immigration down, until demographics solves the issue by replacement.
People of the UK. I might be in a cell right now, but you all are in a cell. It’s the prison of fear and silence your governement and the PC tyranny has locked you in since the days of your childhood.
I ask you, I command you, break free!
Patriots of the UK: come out of the closet. Make your dissent visible by visible acts of resistance that inspire others. I know for certain that millions in the UK think like me. Those millions should be on the street now.
We need a coming out of the silent majority, or Britain is lost. We need a free, open and honest debate about immigration, Islam and demographics, so we can sort these problems out together.
And I know that the force is still in you. With your Brexit vote you stunned the world! The will and the life of the British nation is not broken.
Initially, I asked if freedom of speech is dead in the UK. You, every one of you who came today, is a living sign that the tradition of the UK is not dead! You are the livley tradition of your nation, saving its face before history.
People of the UK — remember who you are! Remember your glorious past, you are sons and daughters of knights, kings, explorers, philosophers and artists. Who is the sovereign in this country?
Is it big money?
The mainstream media?
It’s you — the people. You, the silent and invisible majority who said NO during Brexit. You can say NO again — no to Islamisation, no to mass immigration, and no to the great replacement.
And YES to your identity — yes to your security, yes to your heritage and the future for your children.
And all this is impossible without to freedom of speech.
I know, if these words will find their way to the UK and even to Speakers’ Corner, it will be victory for our cause.
If they did, and if you are hearing them now, I tell you: go further on that winning street. Don’t be afraid because we have an ally that is unbeatable: Truth.
The battle, our battle for freedom of speech, has just begun, and Speakers’ Corner will become a symbolic place in that struggle.
When you go home know I want you to bring the spirit of Speakers’ Corner with you. Every single person who raised his hand because he could relate to this moment of fear, when he did not dare to speak his mind.
Promise me: Next time I will overcome my inner fear. Next time I will speak up!
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Saturday, March 24, 2018
In 2008 the American taxpayer was a “client without a voice” when Citi-Group demanded a financial bailout. TARP followed as the largest bailout in history, and Citibank got the biggest bailout of all:The final report from the Congressional Oversight Panel found that between TARP, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, Citigroup received the most federal funding during the financial crisis for a total of $476.2 billion in cash and guarantees.Fast forward ten years and now Citibank announces their intent to restrict business enterprise engaged in the Second Amendment, firearm sales. The motive is transparent; leadership within Citi-group are opponents to gun ownership and they have now made a decision to use their financial business as a weapon to enforce their political beliefs:[…] Today, our CEO announced Citi is instituting a new U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy. […] Under this new policy, we will require new retail sector clients or partners to adhere to these best practices: (1) they don’t sell firearms to someone who hasn’t passed a background check, (2) they restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21 years of age, and (3) they don’t sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines. This policy will apply across the firm, including to small business, commercial and institutional clients, as well as credit card partners, whether co-brand or private label.In the current example they don’t like certain types of gun purchases (18 year olds, 20 round magazines, etc.), so ask yourself what will they not like next?
It is important to keep in mind that all three issues outlined by Citibank are not unlawful; these are social policies around firearm sales that Citibank is initiating on their own. If you follow the underlying policy to a reasonable outcome, the same approach could be taken toward barring auto dealers (who use Citi-financial products) from selling gasoline powered automobiles, because the people running Citibank are environmentalists.
Regardless of how you feel about guns think about what this financial service company is doing here.
What happens when they don’t like the political position of Home Depot?
What happens when they don’t like the free speech of Alex Jones (Info-Wars)?
Beyond the ‘second amendment’ you can just as easily see Citi-group using their monolithic financial control to target the ‘first amendment’.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be so particularly annoying if Citibank didn’t demand the previous taxpayer bailout (TARP); I don’t remember gun owners having the option of exclude their tax receipts from the bailout request of Citi in 2008?
However, with more and more organizations deciding to limit the use of their products and services based on political ideology; and with Citibank now openly stating their intent to create national legislation without actually applying congressional laws to their endeavors; it’s a fair request to say Citi-group should no longer be permitted any favorable benefits from the FDIC.
If you are stunned by their position…. What can you do about it?
Disconnect yourselves from Citigroup: ♦If you have investments with Citigroup pull out of their service; move your money. ♦Drop Citigroup as a lender or mortgage provider. ♦Cut up your Citigroup credit cards. ♦Never take a loan from Citigroup. ♦Or, ultimately for those in business…. if you are a business that takes Citigroup financial products as payment, consider applying a surcharge for any customer who uses Citibank credit or debit cards.
♦Citibank customers paying an additional, say… 5% surcharge might just catch someone’s attention. Just sayin’.
Citigroup will not do business with companies that allow certain kinds of gun sales. It is the first Wall Street bank to take such steps. https://t.co/zI2DeI5hqz— The New York Times (@nytimes) March 22, 2018
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Saturday, March 17, 2018
Full video here.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Students from coast to coast are planning to walk out of school Wednesday morning as a call to action for tougher gun control laws.
Harford County Public Schools are threatening discipline if students leave the classroom, and now the ACLU of Maryland is stepping in to defend them. They are telling the Harford County Public School District not to punish students who leave school grounds on Wednesday any harsher than they would for any other unexcused absence.
RELATED: Harford County students told they can't leave school on day of national walkout
Last week, the school district sent out a letter to parents and students saying it could not condone students leaving the classroom to participate in the national school walkout due to safety reasons. Superintendent Barbara Canavan said students who do leave could face disciplinary action.
The ACLU of Maryland says it has received a number of complaints about the letter and is now responding to it, saying the school district cannot infringe on the students' first amendment rights to free speech.
The school district has not responded to the ACLU, however, in the letter, Canavan said they would be holding activities in school for students to talk about their thoughts and feelings on gun violence.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Nature of the right
Individual or collective right
Although some explanations of the right of revolution leave open the possibility of its exercise as an individual right, it was clearly understood to be a collective right under English constitutional and political theory.
As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resistance to Revolution, “private individuals were forbidden to take force against their rulers either for malice or because of private injuries....” Instead, “not just a few individuals, but the ‘Body of the People’ had to feel concerned” before the right of revolution was justified and with most writers speaking of a “ ‘whole people who are the Publick,’ or the body of the people acting in their ‘public Authority,’ indicating a broad consensus involving all ranks of society.”
Right versus duty
Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, "It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more understandable than that right to rebel, because the right to rebellion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it."
Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries, "The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature's God when they threw off absolute despotism." The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "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" (emphasis added). The phrase "long train of abuses" is a reference to John Locke's similar statement in Second Treatise of Government, where he explicitly established overthrow of a tyrant as an obligation. Martin Luther King likewise held that it is the duty of the people to resist unjust laws.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
The Maryland state senate just fired a broadside at President Trump in terms of his hopes for reelection… or so they think. Like many other blue states, the Old Line State’s upper chamber just approved a new bill which would require all presidential and vice presidential candidates to submit five years worth of tax returns in order to make it onto the ballot. Yes, it’s a grand day for democracy, isn’t it? But the measure in question didn’t even draw the support of all the Democrats in the chamber. (Baltimore Sun)And I thought that the U.S. Constitution established the requirements for running for President, not the Maryland legislature. Silly me.The Maryland Senate on Monday night passed a bill to require president and vice presidential candidates to release their tax returns if they wish to appear on the state’s ballots.
The move, a direct assault on President Donald Trump, drew harsh criticism from Republicans and some Democrats.
“Show me in the Constitution where it says that’s a qualification for being president of the United States,” said Sen. James Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat. “We can’t go along and make up rules when we don’t like the president of the United States.”
The chamber voted 28-17 to pass the measure, meaning it got the support of all but four Democrats — Brochin, Sen. James DeGrange, Sen. Katherine Klausmeier and Sen. James Mathias.
While the measure still passed, it’s unclear if they’ll be able to get it all the way through to the Governor’s desk or if it will temporarily become law. The Democratic members should have spent a bit more time listening to their colleague, James Brochin, who has the right idea and refused to vote for the measure.
Some Trump opponents have tried to claim that such an effort would be legal, including Lawrence Tribe. (But let’s be honest… Tribe would support anything that damaged Donald Trump even if it included proving that the moon was made of green cheese.) The consensus opinion, however, seems to be that the effort would be doomed to failure.
As has been repeatedly documented in the past, the states are not allowed to impose any sort of restrictions to ballot access which would go beyond the qualifications for the office set forth in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on that question when term limits were being discussed. Exceptions are made for minor requirements such as gathering a specific number of signatures to prevent the ballot from becoming flooded with candidates with zero viability and the requirement for filing fees, but that’s about it.
Even California Governor Jerry Brown, generally regarded as the de facto king of the #RESIST movement, vetoed a bill like this last year, saying that the courts would have just overturned it anyway. And when you’ve lost Jerry Brown…
Perhaps we should just hope that Maryland actually passes this bill. It would immediately be challenged and add to the body of casework which needs to go to the Supreme Court. It would presumably be dismissed there unless some sort of mass hysteria engulfs the court. And even if the Maryland bill made it through, keep one other thing in mind. Did anyone really believe Trump was going to carry Maryland anyway?
Aussie Downer: You might not know the name of Alexander Downer, but you should. The former Australian Foreign Minister and current Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Downer is the person who actually started the ball rolling in creating the anti-Trump dossier. And, it turns out, he's a Clintonite.
Downer sat down for a pint or two in a London pub with former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos back in 2016. Papadopoulos claimed to Downer that the Russians had some nasty information on Hillary Clinton.
Downer subsequently told the FBI. And the FBI then began investigating not Clinton, but possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
When it became known that a foreign diplomat had informed the FBI, it was treated as if it was a simple act of diplomatic chivalry by an ally tipping us off to dirty tricks by the Russians.
It turns out it's a bit more complicated than that. In fact, as The Hill has reported, Downer is a Clintonista, and signed over $25 million in Australian government funds to the Clinton Foundation to fight AIDs in Southeast Asia. It was one of the biggest gifts ever to the foundation.
Today, nation after nation that once tapped their taxpayers to give money to the Clintons on the assumption that she would be president are walking away from the scandal plagued global Clinton charity, which has been shown to be a front for enriching the Clinton family. The Clinton Foundation today is a shell of its former self.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens further, as Lifezette.com's Mark Tapscott reports that Downer "is himself closely tied to a Chinese firm experts say is deeply involved in espionage against America."
Tapscott notes that just last month, the heads of the six main U.S. spy agencies warned Americans not to use equipment made by Huawei, a chinese maker of smartphones.
"We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks," FBI Director Chris Wray told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The Australian, a newspaper down-under, reports that Downer became a member of the board of directors of Huawei's Australian unit all the way back in June of 2011. So Downer is himself compromised, as everyone who exists in the Clinton web appears to be.
Recall, now, that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee both ponied up to have former British spy Christopher Steele gin up a phony dossier on Donald Trump, to be used as the basis for the current ongoing investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
And that former FBI Director James Comey dutifully took the dossier to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve a wiretap of former minor Trump aide Carter Page, as the entry point into a much larger investigation of Trump's entire campaign.
As of today, that year and a half old investigation has yielded nothing, but has taken down a bunch of peripheral players in and around the Trump administration on technical violations of the law.
What neither the FBI nor the Mueller investigations revealed to the public or Congress was that the FISC application to spy on Page was based on information from four Clinton supporters: Steele, Downer, former Clinton Foundation employee and Clinton administration official Sidney Blumenthal, and Clinton dirty tricks operative Cody Shearer. Journalist Michael Isikoff's reporting on the matter was also used, but it turned out to be sourced from Christopher Steele.
In short, the whole investigation — all of it — was a product of Clinton and her followers, both inside and outside of the FBI and Justice Department.
Let's put this all together. Downer, a Clinton supporter, tells the FBI that the Russians have dirt on Hillary, based on a conversation with a Trump adviser. The FBI launches an investigation.
Hillary Clinton pays a former British spy to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, with Russian officials' help. The resulting dossier is used as a pretense for launching a spying operation against Trump.
Meanwhile, Comey and a variety of high-level openly anti-Trump FBI officials, including James Strzok and Bruce Ohr, collude to drop the investigation into Hillary Clinton's clear breaches of the law with the unsecured, homebrew email server she used while secretary of state. Intelligence officials later say it was almost certain that Clinton's server was hacked by either the Russians, the Chinese or both.
The entire "investigation" of Trump, start to finish, seems to have been propelled by Hillary Clinton and her minions. At some point, Congress, which is responsible for this corrupt and likely illegal mess, should step in and end it by either defunding Mueller, forcing him to focus on the original aims of the investigation, or by simply shutting it down.
If not, it's likely to end up with trumped up charges, pun intended, against a sitting president and demands for his impeachment.
There will obviously be another media cycle decrying crisis at the White House with the announcement that National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn is departing.
However, for those who follow the administration closely, this was a foregone conclusion; the MAGAnomic “America First” policy has a specifically timed exit ramp for just this purpose.
We have previously outlined the relationship between President Trump and Gary Cohn – Along with what each of them brings to the perspectives of the other. In addition, the larger Trump economic policy always held two distinct aspects:1) The financial aspects – taxes and monetary policy stability; or perhaps more succinctly the Wall Street aspect.The implementation of Trump’s economic policy involves those two elements: Taxes and Trade. Inside the Trump administration there are economic policy advocates who agree on the tax element, but disagree on the trade element. Economic adviser Gary Cohn is an example.
2) The trade, jobs and manufacturing aspects – trade policy; or perhaps more succinctly the Main Street aspect.
The Wall Street crowd align with Trump on taxes, but fundamentally split from him on trade. The combined Trump policy is part of the larger America-First initiative, but some within the economic team only agree with half of the aggregate policy. This is why there is a split.
As previously noted, with the tax reform proposals in place (the basis for domestic economic investment), the focus of Trump’s economic platform turns specifically to Main Street. This policy split is what makes President Trump so stunningly unique amid politicians. POTUS Trump splits from the traditional republican economic outlook on matters surrounding Main Street’s best interests.
Inside this dynamic, and the goal to restore a ‘balanced’ U.S. economy, is where the importance of Gary Cohn diminishes and the role of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross elevates. Secretary Ross is the person creating the fulcrum in the balanced economy reset.
POTUS Trump and Secretary Ross always knew they would need to jettison part of the administrations’ economic team once they accomplished, and moved past, tax reform.
Their focus now is laser targeted policy toward Main Street. Consider this ‘Phase-2’
We are now inside phase-2 of the total policy execution. Secretary Ross outlined how the ‘America First’ economic policy and phase-2 platform engages with the global community during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January.
The corporate media, even the financial media, never highlighted the severity expressed by Wilbur Ross at Davos – because the Main Street policy he was explaining is directly against their interests. During the Davos World Economic Forum, Ross conveyed to the larger multinational interests an explanation of the high-level shift in U.S. trade policy, and reinforced the Trump Doctrine of economic nationalism.
Secretary Ross told the panel: “The Chinese for quite a little while have been superb at free-trade rhetoric and even more superb at highly protectionist behavior. Every time the U.S. does anything to deal with a problem, we are called protectionist.”
“Protectionists” the opposition was predicted to shout by Ross in January. Well, cue the audio visual demonstrations over the past few days surrounding Steel and Aluminum tariffs.
Also at Davos in January, after three decades of President Trump outlining his trade views, secretary Ross accurately said President Donald Trump has a forceful leadership style that some people don’t like. “We don’t intend to abrogate leadership, but leadership is different from being a sucker and being a patsy. We would like to be the leader in making the world trade system more fair and more equitable to all participants” Ross said.
Secretary Ross also challenged the panelists, including World Trade Organization Director-General Roberto Azevedo and Cargill Inc. CEO David MacLennan, to name a nation that’s less protectionist than the U.S. – – – He got no responses.
Not taking any guff, Secretary Ross then cited a study of more than 20 products that showed China had higher tariffs on all but two items on the list, and Europe all but four. The panel sat jaw-agape at Ross’s delivery of irrefutable facts to the audience. “Before we get into sticks and stones about free trade we ought to first talk about, is there really free trade or is it a unicorn in the garden,” said Ross. Again, no response from the panel.
Despite the tariffs Trump imposed in January on solar panels and washing machines; and despite the proposition of Steel and Aluminum tariffs, China is planning for a “bumper year” for new trade deals, according to China’s own Commerce Ministry.
For the past 30+ years, DC politicians have been selling out the U.S. economy to corporate interests, Wall Street and multinationals. President Trump is simply saying “no more”, and finally putting a stop to it. They hate him. He doesn’t care.
Monday, March 5, 2018
The FBI's secret warrant to surveil Carter Page should scare all Americans and spur reform.
A secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
As technology makes state scrutiny increasingly easy, America has seen a corresponding increase in the abuse of its surveillance tools. With a legal framework, first created in the 1970s — before the widespread use of computers, email or cell phones — the few safeguards we have are evaporating rapidly. The curious case of Carter Page, where the FBI used a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant to surveil the virtually unknown, unpaid foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, is only the latest example of a larger, existential threat to the American system of political discourse.
When a physical search occurs in accordance with American criminal law, law enforcement must show probable cause and obtain permission from a judge, and then present a given suspect with a warrant, and a receipt for the items removed. When law enforcement wants to obtain a criminal wiretap, they similarly have to show probable cause to obtain a warrant, carefully collect information related to potential crimes, and then disclose that information if charges are wrought. The key difference, is that with the latter, the suspect will only discover they've had their privacy violated after they've been indicted. With a FISC warrant, it's possible a suspect will never find out, even if charges are eventually filed.
In the case of Carter Page, his private life was monitored, for almost a year, without his knowledge, and then placed on display for strangers at the FBI to peruse, all based on a suspicion that he was colluding with Russia. On the basis of hearsay, business associations, and possibly Page's political opinions, the FBI received a classified surveillance warrant and then renewed it three times. And yet, Page was never officially charged — suggesting that, even given the ability to surveil him in ways that might make the general public cringe, the FBI was never able to find enough evidence for a single crime.
It has become clear that a secret, non-adversarial system of judicial review is an insufficient check to our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. When express disagreement on a foreign policy issue — namely the current sanctions against Russia — form even part of the basis of an allegation which meets the bar for a probable cause warrant, there is something terribly wrong with the current system. The health of our political system depends on the ability to express an unpopular opinion without official recrimination.
Unfortunately the growing number of transgressions against people, like Carter Page, remain hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Officials speak of safeguards, but it's clear that a secret process, and a complacent judiciary, which has elevated prosecutors and members of law enforcement onto a dangerous perch, provides no safety. The FISC, where the warrant for Page was issued, has grown particularly notorious for granting broad surveillance authority based on little, or in some cases, no evidence. Out of more than 39,000 applications presented to the FISC through the end of 2016, only 51 have been rejected, with the majority, 34, of those rejections coming in 2016.
While most FISC warrants remain classified, the few which have emerged through leaks, or been forced into the public domain by First Amendment lawsuits, paint a rather bleak picture. These warrants tell us the FISC has issued “mass” warrants which permit government surveillance based on statistical “selectors.”
These documents also tell us the FISC routinely includes authorization in their warrants for the government to surveil people in contact with their target, and people in contact with the contact; in a scheme referred to as “chaining,” these authorizations will include 2 or 3 “hops.” While the text of the Carter Page warrant application, and court approval, remain a secret, one shudders to think this authority was used to spy upon other members of the Trump campaign team who were in contact with Page. (The memo of the House intelligence committee’s Democrats about the warrant suggests that some unknown number of Trump campaign advisors were the subject of FBI “sub-inquiries.”)
Regardless of what the FBI and DOJ claim was the basis for the Carter Page warrant, the fact remains that he was never officially charged. Had there been evidence of a crime, one would assume there would have been charges. It becomes hard to reconcile his innocence with four separate findings of “probable cause.” The inevitable result is that we must question the court's definition of the word “probable.”
Yet Page is one of the lucky ones: While he still lacks access to the warrant application that prompted his surveillance, he does have proof he was indeed spied upon. He also knows the duration within which his privacy was assaulted, and the degree to which his life was violated. For the vast majority of Americans who've been placed under this microscope — and had their life dissected by faceless government agents — the origin, and methods used to defile their privacy remain a mystery.
For those who suspect surveillance, but lack confirmation and the closure that comes with it, there are lingering effects. Speaking from experience, I can say that victims of surveillance, whether legal or extralegal, are frequently traumatized by the thought that a stranger may be watching their every move. This lingering fear, the thought that we might still be under the microscope, make it difficult to move past the associated paranoia.
To date, the FBI and the FISC have failed to justify their surveillance of Carter Page. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused to face their accuser, particularly when a court, like the FISC, has affirmed the accusation by granting a probable cause warrant. Page has the right to see and hear the evidence against him, regardless whether of charges are filed.
The solution to this growing epidemic is simple: law enforcement should be required to notify any and all Americans, within one year of obtaining it, that a court-approved surveillance warrant was obtained, and once notified, those people should be able hear the accusations against them, and if warranted, set the record straight. It is the right and duty of the people to hold a democratic government accountable, but this can only happen once sufficient light is allowed to shine on the actions of our government.
The ultimate check against government power — public opinion and our collective right to vote — has been muted by a lack of transparency that bars the body politic from providing effective oversight. If more victims could prove how our surveillance laws are being abused for political means, it would surely lead is to a place of awareness and hopefully, a more far informed discussion about “safeguards.”
If a government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, then said government can only truly claim its authority through informed consent.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
If the U.S. were to exit NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the price you pay for most foodstuff at the grocery store would drop 10% in the first quarter and likely drop 20% or more by the end of the first year.
Approximately a decade ago the U.S. Dept of Agriculture stopped using U.S. consumer food prices within the reported measures of inflation. The food sector joined the ranks of fuel and energy prices in no longer being measured to track inflation and backdrop Fed monetary policy. Not coincidentally this was simultaneous to U.S. consumers seeing massive inflation in the same highly consumable sector.
There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When you understand how trade works in the modern era you will understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.
The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated, likely to exit; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
'America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.