Foreign Federal Reserve President Sounds Panic Over Level Of Orchestrated U.S. Debt

FEAR MONGERING

Nearly a decade after the US unleashed its biggest debt-issuance binge in history, doubling the US debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion under president Obama, which was only made possible thanks to the Fed’s monetization of $4 trillion in deficits (and debt issuance), the Fed is starting to get nervous about the (un)sustainability of the US debt.

The Federal Reserve should continue to raise U.S. interest rates this year in response to faster economic growth fueled by recent tax cuts as well as a stronger global economy, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Robert Kaplan said on Wednesday.

Rothschild’s Employee John Maynard Keynes

“I believe the Federal Reserve should be gradually and patiently raising the federal funds rate during 2018,” Kaplan said in an essay updating his views on the economic and policy outlook.

“History suggests that if the Fed waits too long to remove accommodation at this stage in the economic cycle, excesses and imbalances begin to build, and the Fed ultimately has to play catch-up.”

The Fed is widely expected to raise rates three times this year, starting next month.

Kaplan, who does not vote on Fed policy this year but does participate in its regular rate-setting meetings, did not specify his preferred number of rate hikes for this year. But he warned Wednesday that falling behind the curve on rate hikes could make a recession more likely.

Echoing the recent Goldman analysis, which warned that the recently implemented Republican spending plan could lead to an “unsustainable” debt load, Kaplan – who previously worked for Goldman – also had some cautionary words about the Trump administration’s recent tax overhaul, which he said would help lift U.S. economic growth to 2.5% to 2.75% this year, pushing the U.S. unemployment rate, now at 4.1% down to 3.6% by the end of 2018, but not for long.

On the all important issue of inflation, he projected it would firm this year on route to the Fed’s 2-percent goal.

The most ironic warning, however, came when Kaplan predicted the US fiscal future beyond 2 years: he said that while the corporate tax cuts and other reforms may boost productivity and lift economic potential, most of the stimulative effects will fade in 2019 and 2020, leaving behind an economy with a higher debt burden than before.

“This projected increase in government debt to GDP comes at a point in the economic cycle when it would be preferable to be moderating the rate of debt growth at the government level,” Kaplan said.

He was referring, indirectly, to the following chart from Goldman which we showed previously, and which suggests the US will become a banana republic in just a few years.

A higher debt burden will make it less likely the federal government will be able to deliver fiscal stimulus to offset any future economic downturn, he said, and unwinding it could slow economic growth.

While addressing this issue involves difficult political considerations and policy choices, the U.S. may need to more actively consider policy actions that would moderate the path of projected U.S. government debt growth,” he said.

So to summarize: when US debt doubled in the past decade the Fed had no problems, and in fact enabled it. And now, it’s time to panic…

Finally, going back to Kaplan’s point that fiscal stimulus may no longer work during the next downturn covered by a record mountain of debt (which according to Trump’s budget will hit $30 trillion by 2028), we agree, and is why we suggested a few days ago that the next crisis will lead to – what else – even more QE, which also explains why Goldman has been so desperate to get its clients to sell all the Treasurys they have now, as Goldman’s prop desk keeps adding to its inventory…

Bernanke ~ Rothschild’s Keynesian Foreign Federal Reserve Puppet

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/21/foreign-federal-reserve-president-sounds-panic-over-level-of-orchestrated-u-s-debt/

Utah Passes Bill To Expand Raw Milk Sales: Step To Nullify Federal Prohibition Scheme

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (Feb 15, 2018) – Yesterday, a Utah Senate committee passed a bill would expand raw milk sales in the state. Passage into law would take an important step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in effect.

Sen. David Hinkins (R-27) and Rep. Marc Roberts (R-67) introduced Senate Bill 108 (SB108) January 23. The legislation would expand existing laws relating to raw milk sales from producer to consumer in the state. Under the proposed law, a milk producer would be able to sell up to 120 gallons of raw milk per month to consumers without meeting stricter requirements under the current law and permitting program, providing certain conditions are met.

Under the proposed law, the raw milk could only be sold directly to the consumer on the premises where the milk is produced for household use, not resale. SB108 also includes handling, sanitation and record-keeping requirements for unlicensed producers of raw milk. The milk bottle would have to include the warning “This raw milk has not been licensed or inspected by the state of Utah. Raw milk, no matter how carefully produced, may be unsafe.”

 

The proposed law would also allow licensed producers to sell raw milk from a mobile refrigerated truck where the raw milk is maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or a lower temperature.

The Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee approved an amended version of SB108 by a 6-0 vote. The amendment stripped a provision from the bill that would have allowed licensed producers to sell raw milk at farmers’ markets.

Under the current law, raw milk sales are only allowed on the farm, or from a retail store owned by the producer under strict licensing guidelines. Passage of SB108 would relax requirements for small producers, and expand legal sales. This would allow the raw milk market in Utah to grow.

According to nofamass.org, “With a growing demand for raw milk and a decreasing number of raw milk dairies, many consumers are unable to purchase this product.”

Impact on Federal Prohibition

FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.

The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, “no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”

Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines, they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk within the borders of a state.

Saint Pascual Making Bread

“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.

The FDA clearly wants complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.

Legislation like SB108 takes a step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.

As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, an intrastate ban becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages the market and nullifies federal prohibition in effect.

We’ve seen this demonstrated dramatically in states that have legalized industrial hemp. When they authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers.

In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.

It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.

WHAT’S NEXT

SB108 will now move to the Senate floor for a vote. If you live in Utah, contact your senator and ask her/him to vote “yes” on SB108. You can find contact informaiton for your senator HERE.

Tenth Amendment Center

Related News

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/16/utah-passes-bill-to-expand-raw-milk-sales-step-to-nullify-federal-prohibition-scheme/

DOJ & FBI Under “Criminal Investigation” Says Former Federal Prosecutor

Joe DiGenova Federal Prosecutor

A former Federal prosecutor claims that the Democratic response to the House Intel Committee’s GOP-authored “FISA memo” was blocked on the recommendation of the FBI and DOJ because the agencies are conducting internal investigations into politically motivated malfeasance by specific individuals which the Schiff memo could compromise if released without redactions.

Joe DiGenova, a former Special Counsel who went after both the Teamsters and former NY Governer Elliot Spitzer, made the claim on a Monday interview with radio station WMAL.

DiGenova: “We’re going to see the [Democrat memo]. It will be heavily edited by the FBI and the Department of Justice and the CIA.The most important part of this story is that on Friday, February the 9th, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray wrote a letter to the White House counsel Don McGahn that they could not agree to the publication of the Schiff memo because it contained national security and law enforcement concerns.

It was actually the FBI and the Department of Justice says no [to releasing the memo]. The most important part of that letter is when it says… law enforcement concerns. What does that mean? It means, that there is a criminal investigation underway and release of some of the information in the memo by Mr. Schiff will affect that criminal investigation.

I wonder who they are investigating? And the answer is pretty clear. They are investigating the people at the FBI and the DOJ who provided false information to the FISA court over a number of years, including, involving Carter Page.

As an aside, DiGenova’s wife is attorney and former Reagan Justice Department official Victoria Toensing – who is representing former FBI mole William D. Campbell surrounding his Congressional testimony regarding bribes from Russian uranium executives routed to the Clinton Global Iniative.

Last month we reported that DiGenova sat down with the Daily Caller, where he asserted that the Obama Administration’s “brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy” was unraveling.

The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about – a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the way she handled classified information with her classified server. 

Absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony. It’s about finding out why – as the Inspector General is doing at the department of justice – why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That’s not an investigation, that’s a Potemkin village. It’s a farce. DC

DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump. Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says, the FBI “created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants.

Those are all crimes.” He adds, using official FISA-702 “queries” and surveillance was done “to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president.” –Daily Caller

During the interview, DiGenova held referenced what was until then a previously unreported and heavily redacted 99-page FISA court opinion from April, 2017, which “describes systematic and on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff.”

ZeroHedge

Washington Passes Bill Nullifying Jeffery Sessions Asinine Asset Forfeiture Laws

Related News:

  1. German Court: Panetta’s CIA Abducted, Tortured, and Sodomized a German Citizen!
  2. Remembering ~ Obama & Panetta Putting American Lives On The Line In The Middle East For Rothschild Banking System
  3. German Found Dead Who Exposed CIA Bribery, Infiltration, & Manipulation of Media To Foment War Against The People In Europe & Russia
  4. U.S. Citizens To Ukraine, “Do Not Trust Joe Biden”: CIA Director John Brennan & Joe Biden In Ukraine Block Dialogue With The Citizens & Gives Green Light For War! Pravda.

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/13/doj-fbi-under-criminal-investigation-says-former-federal-prosecutor/

Missouri Nullifies Jeffie Sessions Federal Over-Reach Criminalization Of Cannabis

Cannabis Health Spectrum

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 6, 2018) – Last week, a Missouri House committee overwhelmingly passed a bill to decriminalize industrial hemp, setting the foundation to nullify federal prohibition of the plant in practice.

Rep. Paul Curtman (R-Washington) introduced House Bill 2034 (HB2034) on Jan. 10. The legislation would decriminalize industrial hemp in the state by removing it from the list of controlled substances. The proposed law includes hemp products in its definition of industrial hemp.

On Feb. 1, the Agricultural Policy Committee passed HB2034 by a 10-1 vote with some technical amendments.

Final passage of this bill would open the door for a full-scale commercial hemp market in Missouri by treating it as any other crop for farming.

HB2034 would not require any license to grow hemp, and it would create no state regulatory structure. This would have a similar effect as a bill passed in Connecticut in 2015. In short, the state would treat industrial hemp like other plants, such as tomatoes. By ending state prohibition, residents in Missouri would have an open door to develop a commercial hemp market in the state, despite ongoing federal prohibition.

 

FEDERAL FARM BILL

In 2014, Congress cracked the door open for hemp in the U.S. with an amendment to the 2014 Farm Bill. The law allows hemp cultivation for research purposes, but prohibits “commercial” production.

The “hemp amendment” in the 2014 farm bill  —

…allows State Agriculture Departments, colleges and universities to grow hemp, defined as the non-drug oil-seed and fiber varieties of Cannabis, for academic or agricultural research purposes, but it applies only to states where industrial hemp farming is already legal under state law.

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Drug Enforcement Agency released a “statement of principles” to guide interpretation of the hemp section in the Farm Bill. It states, “The growth and cultivation of industrial hemp may only take place in accordance with an agricultural pilot program to study the growth, cultivation, or marketing of industrial hemp established by a State department of agriculture or State agency responsible for agriculture in a State where the production of industrial hemp is otherwise legal under State law.”

In short, the current federal law authorizes farming of hemp – by research institutions, or within state pilot programs – for research only. Farming for commercial purposes by individuals and businesses remains prohibited.

This is how far greedy marketeers went to scare people into corporate manufactured alternative pharmaceuticals vs free mother nature.

The definition of “commercial” remains murky and has created significant confusion.

The statement of principles also asserted that industrial hemp programs are limited to fiber and seed. It didn’t mention the CBD oil or other edible hemp products.The DEA has interpreted that to mean they remain illegal. According to the DEA, CBD cannot be sold under any circumstances.

By ending state prohibition of hemp, passage of HB2034 would open the door for Missouri farmers to ignore federal prohibition and grow hemp commercially anyway. While prospective hemp growers would still have to take federal law into consideration, by ending state enforcement that treats hemp like a drug, the proposed law potentially clears away a major obstacle to widespread commercial hemp farming within Missouri’s borders. It would also remove any threat of state prosecution for retail sales of hemp products.

Several other states with federally-compliant hemp programs, such as Kentucky, North Dakota, Minnesota and New York, have grown significant acreage under federally-approved research programs. This takes the first step, but with federal shackles in place, these states are not legally allowed to develop any kind of commercial market. Ironically, many of these “federally compliant” programs are not actually federally compliant.

Recognizing its limited research program was hindering the development of the industry, West Virginia dumped its federally compliant hemp program during the 2017 legislative session and will now issue federally non-compliant commercial licenses to growers. West Virginia Public Broadcasting confirmed limits imposed by the old program due to its conformity with federal law were holding back the development of a viable hemp industry and everyday farmers cannot benefit.

“But because of the strict requirements under the 2014 bill, growers are not able to sell their plants and cannot transport them across state lines to be turned into those usable products. That’s limited the ability to create a real hemp industry in the state.”

OTHER STATES

Other states, including Colorado, Oregon, Maine, California and Vermont have simply ignored federal prohibition and legalized industrial hemp production within their state borders.

Colorado was the first state with widespread commercial hemp production. Farmers began growing hemp in southeast Colorado back in 2013 and the industry is beginning to mature. The amount of acreage used to grow industrial hemp in the state doubled in 2016 to nearly 5,000 acres, and nearly doubled again in 2017.

The Oregon legislature initially legalized industrial hemp production in 2009. While it was technically legal to grow hemp in the state, farmers didn’t take advantage of the opportunity for nearly five years. When the Oregon Department of Agriculture finally put a licensing and regulatory program in place early in 2014, farmers began growing hemp. The initial regulatory structure placed significant limits on hemp farming and effectively locked small growers out of the market. In 2016, Gov. Kate Brown signed House Bill 4060 into law. It relaxed state laws regulating hemp already on the books and made the crop more like other agricultural products. Within months, the Oregon Department of Agriculture had already promulgated new rules under the reformed law. According to Oregon’s Cannabis Connection, the rules set the stage to creates a “massive” medical hemp market. The state produced 3,469 acres of hemp in 2017.

Both Colorado and Oregon demonstrate how loosening rules at the state level encourage the market and allow hemp a legitimate commercial hemp industry to develop.

HUGE MARKET FOR HEMP

According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. is the only developed nation that hasn’t developed an industrial hemp crop for economic purposes.

Experts suggest that the U.S. market for hemp is around $600 million per year. They count as many as 25,000 uses for industrial hemp, including food, cosmetics, plastics and bio-fuel. The U.S. is currently the world’s #1 importer of hemp fiber for various products, with China and Canada acting as the top two exporters in the world.

During World War II, the United States military relied heavily on hemp products, which resulted in the famous campaign and government-produced film, “Hemp for Victory!

WHAT’S NEXT

HB2034 now goes to the Rules – Legislative Oversight Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving to the House floor for a vote.

Tenth Amendment Center

Related News:

  1. Hemp & Marijuana Threatens Rothschild Corporatist Parasites!
  2. CANNABIS THE MOST MEDICINAL PLANT ON THE PLANET: NICKNAMED MARIJUANA!
  3. PSYCHIATRIC FRAUD: USURPING HEALTH ~ DEVISING SYNTHETIC SOCIAL PARAMETERS.

 

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/07/missouri-nullifies-jeffie-sessions-federal-over-reach-criminalization-of-cannabis/

U.S. Federal Court Strikes Down Hate Law That Attempts To Punish Americans Who Boycott Corporate Israel: Texas Governor Greg Abbot Was Overturned

A FEDERAL JUDGE on Tuesday ruled that a Kansas law designed to punish people who boycott Israel is an unconstitutional denial of free speech. The ruling is a significant victory for free speech rights because the global campaign to criminalize, or otherwise legally outlaw, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement has been spreading rapidly in numerous political and academic centers in the U.S. This judicial decision definitively declares those efforts — when they manifest in the U.S. — to be a direct infringement of basic First Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The enjoined law, enacted last year by the Kansas legislature, requires all state contractors — as a prerequisite to receiving any paid work from the state — “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” The month before the law was implemented, Esther Koontz, a Mennonite who works as a curriculum teacher for the Kansas public school system, decided that she would boycott goods made in Israel, motivated in part by a film she had seen detailing the abuse of Palestinians by the occupying Israeli government, and in part by a resolution enacted by the national Mennonite Church.

The resolution acknowledged “the cry for justice of Palestinians, especially those living under oppressive military occupation for fifty years”; vowed to “oppose military occupation and seek a just peace in Israel and Palestine”; and urged “individuals and congregations to avoid the purchase of products associated with acts of violence or policies of military occupation, including items produced in [Israeli] settlements.”

A month after this law became effective, Koontz, having just completed a training program to teach new courses, was offered a position at a new Kansas school. But, as the court recounts, “the program director asked Ms. Koontz to sign a certification confirming that she was not participating in a boycott of Israel, as the Kansas Law requires.” Koontz ultimately replied that she was unable and unwilling to sign such an oath because she is, in fact, participating in a boycott of Israel. As a result, she was told that no contract could be signed with her.

In response to being denied this job due to her political views, Koontz retained the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the commissioner of education, asking a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law on the grounds that denying Koontz a job due to her boycotting of Israel violates her First Amendment rights. The court on Tuesday agreed and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the law.

The ruling is significant for two independent reasons. The first is the definitive and emphatic nature of the ruling. The court dispensed with an oft-repeated but mythical belief about free speech rights: namely, that they only bar the government from imprisoning or otherwise actively punishing someone for their views, but do not bar them from withholding optional benefits (such as an employment contract) as retaliation for those views.

Very little effort is required to see why such a proposition is wrong:

Just imagine a law which provided that only people who believe in liberalism (or conservatism) will be eligible for unemployment benefits or college loans. Few would have trouble understanding the direct assault on free speech guarantees posed by such a law; the same is true of a law that denies any other benefits (including employment contracts) based on the state’s disapproval of one’s political views, as the court explained in its ruling (emphasis added):

Even more important is the court’s categorical decree that participating in boycotts is absolutely protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and petition rights. Citing the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that invoked free speech rights to protect members of the NAACP from punishment by the state of Mississippi for boycotting white-owned stores, the court in the Kansas case pointedly ruled that “the First Amendment protects the right to participate in a boycott.” In doing so, it explained that the core purpose of the Kansas law is to punish those who are critical of Israeli occupation and are working to end it:

“The Kansas Law’s legislative history reveals that its goal is to undermine the message of those participating in a boycott of Israel. This is either viewpoint discrimination against the opinion that Israel mistreats Palestinians or subject matter discrimination on the topic of Israel.”

Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a law that more directly violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech than one that seeks to deny people benefits for which everyone else is eligible due solely to the state’s disapproval of their political views and activism. Since that’s exactly what this Kansas law did, the court concluded that it was unconstitutional.

BEYOND THE COURT’S emphatic rationale, the decision is significant because repressive measures like this have spread, and continue to spread, far beyond Kansas. Indeed, as we have repeatedly reported and documented, the single greatest threat to free speech in the West — and in the U.S. — is the coordinated, growing campaign to outlaw and punish those who advocate for or participate in activism to end the Israeli occupation.

Zionist Governor Greg Abbot Signs Blackmail Bill Prohibiting State Contracts and Investments with Companies that Boycott Terrorist State Of Israel Signed May 2nd. 2017. ~ 5 days later on May 7th. he signs a fraud bill which attempts to divert attention from His Sanctuary Texas Border Corruption to Sanctuary City By Attacking The Constitutionality Of The U.S. County Sheriffs.

Numerous other U.S. states have implemented similar measures as the one in Kansas — including New York, where, as we previously reported, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order directing all agencies “to terminate any and all business with companies or organizations that support a boycott of Israel” and “requiring that one of his commissioners compile ‘a list of institutions and companies’ that — ‘either directly or through a parent or subsidiary’ — support a boycott.” As the New York Civil Liberties Union told The Intercept at the time about Cuomo’s order: “Whenever the government creates a blacklist based on political views it raises serious First Amendment concerns and this is no exception.”

Boycott Apartheid State Israel

Last year, a measure sponsored by Benjamin Cardin, a Democratic senator from Maryland and an AIPAC loyalist, joined by 43 other senators, went even further, purporting to impose prison sentences and large fines for anyone working with international organizations to boycott Israel. Only after the ACLU vehemently denounced the bill as a grave First Amendment attack that “would punish individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs” did several senators say they were re-considering their support.

Indeed, it’s hard to overstate how pervasive and mainstream these attempts to legally [though Unconstitutionally] suppress criticisms of Israel have become, including in the U.S. As the legal advocacy organization Palestine Legal told The Intercept yesterday,

“Since 2014, over 100 anti-boycott measures (similar to the one blocked in Kansas) have been introduced in the U.S., at least 24 of them enacted. Palestine Legal responded to 308 suppression incidents in 2017 and nearly 1,000 in the last four years.”

The report issued by the group this week details just some of those efforts:

  • Hurricane Harvey victims were required to pledge not to boycott Israel to receive relief aid;
  • An NYC bookstore hid a children’s book about Palestine after calls for censorship;
  • A Palestinian American professor at San Francisco State was sued for researching and teaching about Palestine;
  • A Black student leader at the University of Wisconsin was condemned for speaking out against the connections between white supremacy and Zionism by Trump’s nominee to head the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
  • Hungary Joins Russia In Campaign Against Soros: Israel Calls It An Anti Semitic Campaign

So widespread are attempts to punish and repress speech and activism aimed at ending the Israeli occupation that the Center for Constitutional Rights has dubbed this movement “the Palestine Exception” to free speech rights in the U.S.

Top Ten Countries That Boycott Rothschild’s State Of Israel

The federal court ruling from yesterday is a ringing endorsement of the vital constitutional principle that people cannot be punished by the U.S. government or state governments due to disapproval of their political activism and viewpoints — even if the goal is to protect the Israeli government and its decadeslong illegal occupation from criticism and activism.

The direct result of this ruling is that the Kansas state government is barred from continuing to force teachers and other state residents to take an oath to refrain from boycotting Israel upon pain of being denied contracts, but the broader and more enduring effect may be to emphasize just how authoritarian, repressive, and contrary to core civil liberties the global attempt to abuse the power of law to criminalize or suppress this free expression in the name of protecting Israeli occupation is.

The Intercept

Related News:

  1. Rothschild’s State Of Israel: The Midnight Cowboy
  2. America’s CIA & Israel’s Mossad Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
  3. Netanyahu’s Big Whopper: The State Of Israel’s Role In The Cataclysm To Come
  4. Russian Airstrikes Kill 304 US Israeli ISIS Terrorists On Euphrates Eastern Bank
  5. Updated Death Toll & Devastation By The Illegal Occupation Of Palestine By Israel
  6. Vengeance Fire Destroys $800 Million Worth Of Israeli Financed Weapons At Ukraine’s Munitions Depots
  7. Trump & Tillerson’s “Newer Plan” To Violate International Law Against Syria For Banker’s Greater Israel Project aka Promised Land

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/04/u-s-federal-court-strikes-down-hate-law-that-attempts-to-punish-americans-who-boycott-corporate-israel-texas-governor-greg-abbot-was-overturned/

New FBI messages reveal agents sought way to evade federal record requirements

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,872 other followers

Source Article from https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/new-fbi-messages-reveal-agents-sought-way-to-evade-federal-record-requirements/

Idaho Bill To Nullify Unconstitutional NDAA Indefinite Detention And All Other Federal Acts

STATES ARE DUTY-BOUND TO INTERPOSE UPON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BOISE, Idaho (Feb. 1, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Idaho House would set the foundation to nullify indefinite detention under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) or any other federal act.

The House of Delegates State Affairs Committee Committee introduced House Bill 473 (H473) on Jan. 31. Titled the Restoring Constitutional Governance Act of Idaho, the legislation would ban state, local and federal authorities from acting against any person in Idaho under the laws of war. This would include:

(a) Arresting or capturing any person in Idaho or any citizen of Idaho under  the law of war;

(b) Actually subjecting a person in Idaho to disposition under the law of war; or

(c) Using deadly force under the laws of war against any person in Idaho, or intentionally subjecting any citizen of Idaho for targeted killing or murder.

Any person violating the law would “be prosecuted under the Idaho criminal code relating to the substantive law for which the violation pertains including, but not limited to, assault, battery, kidnapping or murder.”

Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA purport to empower the federal government to essentially kidnap people within the United States and hold them indefinitely without trial, or even formal charges.  Passage of H473 would apply to indefinite detention under the NDAA, or any other federal law. Since the feds always depend on states and their resources to assist with their actions, H473 would likely hinder any attempts at indefinite detention in Idaho.

Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-Seattle) introduced the similar bill in the Washington state Senate. The specter of indefinite detention is quite personal to him. The U.S. government detained his family in a detention camp during World War II for the “crime” of being Japanese.

“While they were constructing the camp, my family lived in horse stalls in the stables at the Puyallup Fairgrounds,” he said. “They were all U.S. citizens.”

The experience of Hasegawa’s family illustrates the very real threat of indefinite detention. It not only can happen here – it has.

People Against the NDAA (PANDA) has been working hard behind the scenes to get H473 introduced. National director Jason Casella said indefinite detention violates multiple sections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

“The indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process is fundamentally un-Constitutional, un-American, and un-Idahoan. Without the right to a trial, we have no rights at all. Our founders believed so firmly in the right to trial by jury that they enshrined it in the body of the Constitution, and again in the Sixth Amendment. It is great to see such great nonpartisan support for the Restoring Constitutional Governance Act which will help ensure that the rights of the people of Idaho are protected.”

It may seem radical to criminalize a federal action. But some northern states did essentially the same thing in an attempt to stop fugitive slave rendition in the 1850s It sounds extreme until you consider what the feds are claiming the authority to do – put a bag over your head and lock you up for as long as they want without trial or even charges. That’s the extreme here. Trying to stop it is a rational response.

PRACTICAL EFFECTS

As we’ve explained in the past, practically speaking, it would be extremely difficult for the state to prosecute federal agents for enforcing federal law. Under federal statute, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties gets removed to federal court. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.

But even without the threat of prosecuting federal agents, H473 would still make it difficult to indefinitely detain people in Idaho. The federal government depends on state and local cooperation to implement virtually every federal program and enforce virtually every federal law. Investigations in North Carolina have revealed how state and local resources supported rendition and torture during the G.W. Bush administration.The state has every right to prohibit cooperation with the federal government and to prosecute state agents. Without the cooperation of state agents and access to the facilities they operate, federal authorities would have a much more difficult time acting against people in Idaho under the laws of war. The threat of arrest – even absent any real likelihood of prosecution, could also serve as a deterrent.

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” provides a strategy to block indefinite detention within a state because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

LEGAL BASIS

Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereign

Tenth Amendment Center

Related News:

  1. Remembering When Arizona Nullified McCain’s NDAA Scheme
  2. Ohio House Of Representatives: Nullifies Belligerent Obama’s NDAA Indefinite Detention ~ 94 / 2
  3. New Hampshire Nullifies Federal Government’s Indefinite Detention Rule NDAA As Unconstitutional
  4. Remembering When Montana Voted 20-0 Defending The Bill Of Rights Nullifying McCain’s NDAA Rule.
  5. Tennessee Sheriffs Cracks Down On Obama Federal Agents Gone Wild: NDAA Nullified And Kidnapping Charges Against Feds
  6. County Sheriff Jantz Of Colorado: Warned Belligerent Federal Authorities That They Would Be Arrested! Struck Down Obama’s NDAA.
  7. States Can Stop Cornyn’s Unconstitutionally Proposed Federal Gun Control Measures In Their Tracks ~ He also Voted Against Americans For The NDAA
  8. Michigan Unanimously Nullifies Lindsey Graham’s Unconstitutional NDAA Rule: Graham Wants Boston Suspect Held Without Constitutional Rights.

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/02/01/idaho-bill-to-nullify-unconstitutional-ndaa-indefinite-detention-and-all-other-federal-acts/

The House of Cards the Foreign Federal Reserve Bankers Built

Jean-Baptiste Siméon Chardin, Boy building a House of Cards , 1735; Rothschild’s Waddesdon Manor, The Rothschild Collection (Rothschild Family Trusts).

Over the last two years, the Federal Reserve has been nudging interest rates higher and their efforts are starting to bear fruit in the marketplace. Bond yields are beginning to climb.

The question is how high can rates go before the house of cards the central bankers built comes tumbling down?

In a podcast last week, Peter Schiff talked about the bond rate that could break the camels back, arguing that yields of around 4% could spark the next economic crisis.

The last time we had a 4% yield on the 10-year was before the 2008 financial crisis. Basically, that was the yield that broke the camel’s back. Remember, the financial crisis was triggered by rising interest rates on the debt that had been accumulated in the years prior as a result of Alan Greenspan keeping interest rates at 1% for a year-and-a-half and then slowly raising them back up over the course of another year-and-a-half. So, as the Fed was moving interest rates up at a measured pace, by the time they got to the point where rates had gone back up to about 5%, the yield on the 10-year was about 4%. That’s about as high as it was able to go. Then the market all fell apart.”

Economist Dr. Thorsten Polleit recently published an article at the Mises Institute that delves into why the “new economy” created by the central bankers cannot endure even modestly higher interest rates.

As Peter alluded to, it has to do with the ever-increasing levels of debt their easy-money, low interest rate policies encourage.

Artificially depressed borrowing costs are fueling a ‘boom.’ Consumer loans are as cheap as never before, seducing people to increasingly spend beyond their means. Low interest rates push down companies’ cost of capital, encouraging additional, and in particular risky investments – they would not have entered into under ‘normal’ interest rate conditions. Financially strained borrowers – in particular states and banks – can refinance their maturing debt load at extremely low interest rates and even take on new debt easily.”

We also get a psychological effect from central bank policy. The Fed, along with the world’s other central banks, have effectively draped a safety net under the markets.

Investors feel assured that monetary authorities will, in case things turning sour, step in and fend off any crisis.

The central banks’ safety net has lowered investors’ risk concern. Investors are willing to lend even to borrowers with relatively poor financial strength.

Furthermore, it has suppressed risk premia in credit yields, having lowered firms’ cost of debt, which encourages them to run up their leverage to increase return on equity.”

Of course, as debt piles up, any increase in the interest rate will strain borrowers. For instance, normalization of interest rates would crush the US budget under interest payments.

Analysts have calculated that if the interest rate on Treasury debt stood at 6.2% – their level in 2000 – the annual interest payment on the current debt would nearly triple to $1.3 trillion annually. And it’s not just governments that will feel the effect.

Highly leveraged corporations and individuals will also struggle in a higher interest rate environment. And they can’t print money in order to kick the can down the road.

AMERICA IS BROKE

The central banks have created a vicious cycle, as Polleit points out. Coming out of the 1990s, the Federal Reserve pushed up rates and ended the “new economy boom,” better-known as the dot-com bubble. In order to “fix” the problem, the Fed slashed rates and created another massive credit boom, primarily centered on the housing market.

That bubble burst in 2007/2008. In the years since, the Fed has repeated the process and we now have a world full of bubbles just waiting to pop.

With every cycle, the Fed has had take rates to lower levels and keep them there longer. And with each recovery, the peak interest rate that popped the bubble has been increasingly lower. Polleit explains the dynamics in easy to understand terms.

A destructive side effect of fiat money is that the economy’s level of debt keeps rising over time: The growth of credit keeps outpacing production gains. This is because in a fiat money regime, credit-financed investments fall short of their expected profitability, and credit-financed consumption is unproductive.

Quite a few investments turn out to be flops. The economy gets caught in a debt trap. Credit-financed consumption and government spending make it even worse. To be sure: it has become a problem on a global scale.”

“In an attempt to prevent the day of redemption, central banks slash interest rates to ever lower levels to keep the system going.

Once interest rates are lowered, however, they typically cannot (for political reasons, I should hasten to say) be brought back to pre-crisis levels – as this would make the debt pyramid, and with it the economy and the financial system, come crashing down. It is this economic insight that explains why interest rates show a marked trend decline over the last decades in all countries that have adopted fiat money.”

As economist Ludwig von Mises said, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.” This house of cards will collapse. It’s not a question of “if,” but “when.”

Schiff Gold

Related News:

  1. Silver Expected To Outperform Gold In 2018
  2. Americans Want Nullification Of Banker’s Counterfeit Debt
  3. Ron Paul: Repeal The 1913 Rothschild Federal Reserve: The Hidden Treasonists
  4. Silver Is a Strong Buy 2018: “The Last Straw” For The Large Paper Speculators, who have “thrown in the towel”

 

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/01/29/the-house-of-cards-the-foreign-federal-reserve-bankers-built/

Tennessee Medical Marijuana Bill Nullifies Jeff Sessions Federal Unconstitutional Overreach

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Jan. 26, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Tennessee Senate would legalize medical marijuana for qualifying patients in the state, setting the foundation to nullify unconstitutional federal cannabis prohibition in practice.

Introduced by Sen. Steven Dickerson (R-Nashville), Senate Bill 1710 (SB1710) would allow individuals to possess medical marijuana if they suffer from one or more qualifying conditions. Dispensaries would be permissible under SB1710 to provide medical marijuana to qualifying patients as well. Patients would also have the option of naming a caretaker who could grow marijuana on their behalf.

“Now is the time for the General Assembly to embrace thoughtful, medically responsible legislation to help Tennessee’s sickest residents,” Sen. Dickerson said.

Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby) filed a companion bill (HB1749) in the House.

Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as SB1710 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice.

LEGALITY

Under the [Unconstitutional] Controlled Substances Act (CSA) passed in 1970, the federal government maintains complete prohibition of marijuana. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.

Only Two Parties In The U.S., Those Who Obey The Constitution And Those Who Do Not!
~ Patrick Henry

Unconstitutional Powers By Repetition

Usurpations by one branch of government, of powers entrusted to a coequal branch, are not rendered constitutional by repetition.

The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

Legalization of medical marijuana in Tennessee would remove one layer of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana, but [unconstitutional] federal prohibition will remain on the [ir] books.

FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not [unconstitutional] federal law [rules]. By curtailing state prohibition, Tennessee could sweep away some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests.

Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly annual budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles [If Allowed By The Constitutional County Sheriff In The First Place]  – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution either [If Allowed By The Constitutional County Sheriff In The First Place]. The lesson? The feds lack the resources [& Constitutional Authority] to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance.

President Jefferson

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Tennessee could join a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition, and nullifying it in practice. Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska were the first states to legalize recreational cannabis, and California, Nevada, Maine, and Massachusetts joined them after ballot initiatives in favor of legalization [Nullifying The Fed Overreach] passed last year.

With 29 states allowing cannabis for medical use [Nullifying The Fed Overreach], the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce [Unconstitutional] prohibition anymore.

“The lesson here is pretty straightforward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the [ir Way Ward Employee aka;] federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds [Way Ward Employee] can do to shove their so-called laws [Deep State Rules], regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said.

WHAT’S NEXT?

SB1710 will need to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee before it can be considered in the full Senate. HB1749 had not been referred to a committee at the time of this report.

Tenth Amendment Center

Source Article from https://politicalvelcraft.org/2018/01/28/tennessee-medical-marijuana-bill-nullifies-jeff-sessions-federal-unconstitutional-overreach/