Thanks Baker.
The Omnipotent Power to Assassinate
Written by Jacob G. Hornberger - Friday February 12, 2021
It goes without saying that the Constitution called into existence a government with few, limited powers. That was the purpose of enumerating the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution was bringing into existence a government of unlimited or omnipotent powers, then there would have been no point in enumerating a few limited powers. In that event, the Constitution would have called into existence a government with general, unlimited powers to do whatever was in the interests of the nation.
If the Constitution had proposed a government of omnipotent powers, there is no way the American people would have accepted it, in which case America would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation. Our American ancestors didn’t want a government of omnipotent powers. They wanted a government of few, limited, enumerated powers.
Among the most omnipotent powers a government can wield is the power of government officials to assassinate people. Our American ancestors definitely did not want that type of government. That is why the power to assassinate is not among the enumerated powers of government in the Constitution.
Despite the enumerated-powers doctrine, our American ancestors were still leery. They knew that the federal government would inevitably attract people who would thirst for the power to assassinate people. So, to make certain that federal officials got the point, the American people enacted the Fifth Amendment after the Constitution was ratified. ''It expressly prohibited the federal government from taking any person’s life without due process of law.''
Due process of law is a term that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta. At a minimum, it requires formal notice of charges and a trial before the government can take a person’s life. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, assassination involves taking a person’s life without notice or trial.
For some 150 years, the federal government lacked the power to assassinate people. For the last 75 years, however, the federal government has wielded and actually exercised the omnipotent power to assassinate, including against American citizens.
How did it acquire this omnipotent power? Certainly not by constitutional amendment. It acquired it by default — by converting the federal government after World War II from a limited-government republic to a national-security state.
www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/february/12/the-omnipotent-power-to-assassinate/
continued
A national-security state is a totalitarian form of governmental structure. North Korea is a national security state. So is Cuba. And China, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan. And the United States, along with others.
A national-security state is based on a vast, all-powerful military-intelligence establishment, one that, as a practical matter, wields omnipotent powers. Thus, when the CIA, one of the principle components of America’s national-security state, was called into existence in 1947, it immediately assumed the power to assassinate. In fact, as early as 1952 the CIA published an assassination manual that demonstrates that the CIA was already specializing in the art of assassination (as well as cover-up) in the early years of the national-security state.
In 1954, the CIA instigated a coup in Guatemala on grounds of “national security.” The aim of the coup was to oust the country’s democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, and replace him with a military general. As part of the coup, the CIA prepared a list of people to be assassinated. To this day, the CIA will not disclose the names of people on its kill list (on grounds of “national security,” of course) but it is a virtual certainty that President Arbenz was at the top of the list for establishing a foreign policy of peace and friendship with the communist world. To his good fortune, he was able to flee the country before they could assassinate him.
In 1970, the CIA was attempting to prevent Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile. Like Arbenz, Allende’s foreign policy was based on establishing a peaceful and friendly relationship with the communist world. The CIA’s plan included inciting a coup led by the Chilean military. However, the overall commander of Chile’s armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, stood in the way. His position was that he had taken an oath to support and defend the constitution and, therefore, that he would not permit a coup to take place. The CIA conspired to have him violently kidnapped to remove him as an obstacle to the coup. During the kidnapping attempt, Schneider was shot dead.
Schneider’s family later filed suit for damages arising out of Schneider’s wrongful death. The federal judiciary refused to permit either US officials or the CIA to be held accountable for Schneider’s death. Affirming the US District Court’s summary dismissal of the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that US officials who were involved in the crime could not be held liable since they were simply acting within the course and scope of their employment. Moreover, the US government couldn’t be held liable because, the court stated, it is sovereignly immune.
Central to the Court’s holding was what it called the “political question doctrine.” It holds that under the Constitution, the judicial branch of the government is precluded from questioning any “political” or “foreign policy” decision taken by the executive branch.
Actually though, the Constitution says no such thing. It is in fact the responsibility of the judicial branch to enforce the Constitution against the other branches, including the national-security branch. That includes the Fifth Amendment, which expressly prohibits the federal government from taking people’s lives without due process of law.
So, why did the federal judiciary come up with this way to avoid taking on the CIA? Because it knew that once the federal government was converted to a national-security state, the federal government had fundamentally changed in nature by now having a branch that could exercise omnipotent powers, such as assassination, with impunity. The federal judiciary knew that there was no way that the judicial branch of government could, as a practical matter, stop the national-security branch with assassinating people. To maintain the veneer of judicial power, the judiciary came up with its ludicrous “political question doctrine” to explain why it wasn’t enforcing the Constitution
Once Pinochet took office after the coup in Chile, the Chilean judiciary did the same thing as the US judiciary. It deferred to the power of the Pinochet military-intelligence government, declining to enforce the nation’s constitution against it. Like the US judiciary, the Chilean judiciary recognized the reality of omnipotent power that comes with a national-security state. Many years later, the Chilean judiciary apologized to the Chilean people for abrogating its judicial responsibility.
www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2021/february/12/the-omnipotent-power-to-assassinate/
By Big Government For Big Government
Posted on February 12, 2021 by MN Gordon
One of the notable byproducts of the current age of unreason is the popularity of lies as a matter of public policy. We’ll clarify this claim in just a moment. But first, some context is in order…
On Wednesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased 0.3 percent in January. Not bad, so long as you didn’t have to drive anywhere. If you did, you may have noticed your dollars didn’t get you as far. The gasoline index increased 7.4 percent in January.
''What’s going on?''
Over the last 10-months the price of oil has quietly recovered from an extreme negative in April of 2020 to over $58 for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude. And the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s food price index is at its highest level since July 2014. The main factors contributing to its rise are increases in grain prices.
Our hunch is that consumer prices will rise much further and faster in 2021 than the bean counters at the Bureau of Labor Statistics anticipate. In the interim, manufacturers of consumable products can mask price inflation by reducing product size, while keeping price the same. The ruse of shrinkflation is not new to the marketplace. However, when governments over issue their currency it becomes much more prevalent.
Just last week, for instance, Nutella confirmed that it will reduce its 400 gram jars to 350 grams due to rising production costs. But that’s not all. In 2020, packages of Nathan’s Pretzel Dogs were reduced from five hotdogs to four.
Other common products that shrunk in 2020 include: Downey Unstoppables (10 oz to 8.6 oz), Charmin Ultra Strong (286 sheets to 264), Dawn (small bottle, 8 oz to 7 oz), Lay’s Potato Chips (party bag, 15.25 oz to 13 oz), Keebler Club Crackers (13.7 oz to 12.5 oz), Charmin Mega roll (reduced by 20 sheets), Powerade (32-oz to 28 oz), Puffs (56 tissues to 48), and Hershey’s kisses (family size bags reduced from 18 oz to 16 oz).
Of course, manufacturers are just playing the hand they’ve been dealt. They know consumers are more likely to limit purchases due to a rise in price verses a reduction in weight. They’re merely reacting to the rising price of raw goods and materials. But what’s driving this?
Too Much Stimulus Is Never Enough
Has demand for goods and services suddenly spiked? Have grain crops suffered from a surge in mites and beetles? Is the rise in oil prices due to normal changes in seasonal demand?
Perhaps these variables – and others – have something to do with what appears to be moderate consumer price inflation, assuming you go by the government’s propaganda numbers. But we think there’s something much more going on.
One of the hottest questions currently being bantered about in Washington is: How much stimulus is enough?
Every politician and bureaucrat seems to have an answer. For example, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen thinks passage of the proposed $1.9 trillion stimulus bill will return the U.S. economy to full employment by next year. Senator Mitt Romney wants to send $3,000 checks, per child, to American families.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are offering $2 billion in assistance to pay for funeral and burial expenses for those who died of COVID-19. Senator Bernie Sanders wants to pay out $2,000 checks, as promised. Several other Democrats, including Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren, are calling on Biden to cancel $50,000 in student loan debt, per student, by executive order.
What we have here, folks, is an epic smash and grab. But where’s this money coming from? Where did the $2.2 trillion CARES Act come from? Where did the $900 billion supplement come from?
Naturally, the tab was added to the back of the federal debt. But who financed the debt? Who bought the Treasury notes issued so that all this cash could flow into the economy?
https://economicprism.com/by-big-government-for-big-government/
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/big-government-big-government
continued
You know the answer. The Treasury borrows the fake money from the Federal Reserve. The Fed gets the fake dollars to loan to the Treasury by creating new credit from thin air.
Not only does this scheme deliver stimulus money seemingly for free. It also artificially suppresses interest rates. Thus, once again, fake interest rates have puffed up another massive residential real estate bubble (a story we’re tracking for another day).
Yet, according to Washington, too much stimulus is never enough. Here’s why…
By Big Government For Big Government
Remember, consumer price inflation is merely the effect. Inflation, in its truest sense, is inflation of the money supply. That’s where inflation starts. That’s where the culprit resides.
You see, inflation is produced by big government for big government…and to the detriment of individual freedom and liberty. Austrian School economist, Ludwig von Mises, in his work, The Theory of Money and Credit, elaborated the relationship – and where it leads – many decades ago:
“Inflation is the fiscal complement of statism and arbitrary government. It is a cog in the complex of policies and institutions which gradually lead toward totalitarianism.”
Without policies of inflation big government would not be possible. This is nothing new. The debasement of money by governments has been going on for thousands of years.
The current corruption of your dollars has been going on since the passing of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. And it has been going on in earnest since 1971, when Nixon terminated the convertibility of the dollar into gold by foreign governments.
The dollar has lost over 96 percent of its value since 1913. That means, today’s dollar would be worth less than 4 cents back in 1913. Here’s the point…
The U.S. national debt’s over $27.9 trillion. Yet real gross domestic product, as of Q4 2020, is only $18.8 trillion. The budget deficit for 2020 alone was $3.1 trillion. The forthcoming coronavirus bailout bill, on the heels of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act and $900 billion supplement, ensures that at least another $1.9 trillion more – on top of at least another trillion – will be added to the debt in 2021.
There’s no way the economy can grow its way out of this. The debt will never honestly be paid. But it will be dishonestly paid. And you’ll get to pay it. In fact, you already are. You’re paying it through inflationism.
''The dollars you hold. The dollars you earn. The dollars you use to buy the things you want and need. They’ve been corrupted.''
And as more and more fake dollars are doled out to somehow stimulate the economy, the existing stock of dollars is diluted. The dollar’s value becomes worth less and less. What’s more, in return, this inflation complements statism, arbitrary government, and the push towards totalitarianism.
So when consumer prices rise in earnest, and your political leaders place blame on evil capitalist price gougers, and propose price controls to solve the problem of their making, you’ll know the scoundrels are talking out of the sides of their necks.
Stimulus is a lie…directed by big government for big government.
Sincerely,
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism
https://economicprism.com/by-big-government-for-big-government/
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/big-government-big-government