By: Brandon Smith
Only a few days ago I attended a community meeting here in the Flathead Valley of Montana which revolved around the first of a series of gubernatorial debates covered by webcast across the state. The number of Republican candidates vying in the primaries of this election is a bit absurd, and after witnessing the half-hearted or outright fake performances by most of them, I can see quite clearly that the state of Montana is being targeted by Neo-Con interests posing as Constitutionalists in an attempt to neutralize the extraordinary advance of the Liberty Movement here.
What struck me most sharply was the fact that almost every candidate vying for the governor’s slot had taken on elements of the Liberty Movement philosophy. The elections of 2012 and the immense success of the Ron Paul campaign have so far proven without a doubt that the anti-globalist, anti-totalitarian, anti-collectivist stance is now part of a growing majority in America. Just as we have forced Neo-Con candidates in the Presidential primaries to at least pretend that they care about freedom (quite a change from the Bush years), so too are Republican impostors forced to mimic us in the battle for state offices.
With so many political candidates now at the very least paying lip-service to the concepts of Constitutional freedoms, limited Federal influence, and State’s rights, it may become increasingly difficult for voters to discern who is a snake-oil peddler and who is the real deal. Many who supported the rise of the Tea Party (originally launched by Ron Paul back in 2007-2008), suddenly found their efforts for a free America being hijacked by establishment fakes in 2010. Out of nowhere, gutter dwelling pro-globalist imposters like Rick Santorum could be found headlining forums at Constitutional rallies, and even veteran globalists like Newt Gingrich have tried to jump on the bandwagon.
Three amendments to the NDAA were put forward by senators Udall, Paul, and Feinstein, specifically designed to ensure that American citizens would be protected from the draconian detainment provisions of the NDAA, and all three were struck down. Yet, Allen West and others continue to perpetuate the lie that Americans are safe from such tyranny.
Exposure after the fact is better than nothing, but these difficult days require more vigilance. How can the people of this country avoid making the mistake of voting for such disingenuous candidates when they seem so adept at telling us what we want to hear until they are comfortably in office?
The key is to stop listening to what they say, and start looking closely at what they do. We must ignore their rhetoric, their speeches written by proxy, and their bad jokes slapped together by hired staff, and begin examining their actions and their backgrounds. Because the Liberty Movement has gained so much influence and so much voice over the past four years, it is time that we start setting some ground rules for political candidates we will accept, and those we will not accept, to represent us.
We need to ask ourselves, and them, some very pointed questions. How have they consistently voted in the past? Are they truly protecting our rights as Americans and as a human beings as described in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights? Have they done anything to stall or dismantle corruption in the government and in the banking industry? Or, have every one of their propositions and “solutions” involved the continuation of destabilizing policies designed to aid an elite few at the expense of average Americans? The following is a list of warning signs that can help you, your family, and your friends, no matter what their party affiliation, in determining if a favorite politician is a legitimate statesman, or a puppet bought and paid for by global corporate interests…
1) Have They Ever Promised To Investigate, Audit, Or Dissolve The Private Federal Reserve Bank?
The Federal Reserve is the primary culprit in the creation of the derivatives and credit bubble. Its use of artificially low interest rates inflated the housing market and by extension the U.S. economy, energizing international banking fraud and producing perhaps the greatest financial black hole in history. It is currently staving off the effects of this collapse through the constant printing of fiat money from thin air, setting up the U.S. for a currency implosion of epic proportions.
If your candidate has never made more than a passing sound bite comment on the Federal Reserve and what they plan to do about the poisonous debt and dollar devaluation that the private central bank has generated, then it is likely they are either too ignorant to understand how the institution operates, or, they know full well the problem, and plan to do nothing about it. Ask directly any politician you plan to vote for; will they promise to fully audit and or shut down the Federal Reserve, especially if foul play or corruption is discovered? If they defend the Fed, or dance around the question, then they are not on your side, nor on the side of true free markets and a stable economy.
2) Did They Vote For The Banker Bailouts? Do They Continue To Defend Them?
If a candidate or representative voted for or openly supports the continuance of bailout measures for international banks which taxpayers must eventually cover, then this politician is not for you. The bailouts have accomplished nothing that was promised by the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, or state representatives who gave a platform for their passage. Credit markets have not been unfrozen, the housing market has not stopped its endless decline, and consumer activity has not returned to levels anywhere near those of 2006. Nearly 80% of Americans on both sides of our twisted two party spectrum voiced opposition to the bailouts and have continued to fight against quantitative easing measures on the part of the Federal Reserve. This is not a case of our government knowing better for us than we do for ourselves. This is a case of the government ignoring the will of the people and serving the interests of select elites. If you plan to support a man or woman running for elected office, make absolutely sure they are not proponents of further bailouts and inflationary printing for the sake of propping up big banks, foreign institutions, and the highly manipulated stock market.
3) Do They Support The Domestic Spying Measures Of The FISA Act And The Dissolution Of The 4th Amendment?
Any politician who has the audacity to argue that you must sacrifice your privacy and your liberty for “safety” is not on your side, or the side of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment strictly prohibits illegal search and seizure of a citizen’s property without a warrant and without probable cause, and this includes your personal information and communications. However, over time, the protections of the 4th Amendment have been slowly eroded away. Today, almost every aspect of our lives is an open book for the government to peruse at their slightest convenience.
With the advent of new measures executed through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, no electronic transfer of data is safe, and corporate entities which handle these communications are completely immune from civil suits involved in the release of private information. Under FISA, and under any act which authorizes mass surveillance of the public, every citizen is treated as guilty until proven innocent. This is not Constitutional. If your candidate has his hands into FISA or other pieces of legislation that open the door to domestic spying, drop them like a bad habit, or find yourself in deep regret later down the road.
4) Do They Support The NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, The AUMF, The Expatriation Act, Etc.?
The fascinating thing about the response by legislators to the fury over the NDAA is that they now refuse to acknowledge that the bill actually pertains to American citizens. This tells me they are afraid to confront those opposed to the bill on the grounds that indefinite detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus is necessary. Arguments from men like Allen West (or Denny Rehberg here in Montana) revolve around one line in the bill from Sec. 1022 which they use completely out of context:
1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
What they consistently refuse to explain is the word “requirement” in this line. If they were to place the line in the context of all the provisions involving indefinite detainment, the word “requirement” pertains to foreign prisoners that fall under the definition of “covered persons” in Sec. 1021 (a covered person could essentially be anyone the government decides to accuse of being a terrorist). So, to put this as simply as possible; the government and the U.S. military is “required” under the NDAA to indefinitely detain without jury trial those foreign prisoners designated as enemy combatants or terrorists. The government is not required to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens under the NDAA, but they can if they want to! This precedent was set by the passage of the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force (AUMF), and was further strengthened (not obstructed as some propagandists claim) by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The NDAA gives the highly unconstitutional practice the Congressional stamp of approval.
With the NDAA, Americans must adopt a scorched earth policy before it is too late. Every single sitting legislator that supports this bill must be removed from office. Every political candidate running this year who proclaims support for the NDAA should be avoided like a plague ridden corpse. SOPA, PIPA, the Expatriation Act, and other pieces of legislation operate on the same principle as the NDAA; they create a grey area within the law that allows government to accuse any person of a crime without evidence and inflict punishment without due process. If we allow political vampires who nurture these measures into seats of power, then America ceases to be. Without our liberties and the means to protect them, our country becomes nothing more than a doomed land mass devoid of principles or honor.
5) Do They Have Overt Ties To The Military-Industrial Complex?
The last thing this nation needs is another ‘chicken hawk’ candidate thirsty for war in far off lands as long as he doesn’t ever have to do any of the actual fighting. However, what we need even less are candidates who have made their livings and their careers dispensing war for quick cash. In Montana, it is disconcerting to be confronted with the likes of Neil Livingstone, who gave audiences a brief chuckle when he claimed that he would like to reintroduce the gray wolf to Washington D.C. instead of Montana to see how they liked it. Very funny, but if the audience really knew Livingstone’s history, they wouldn’t be laughing.
Livingstone’s background in private mercenary warfare and Blackwater-like businesses leaves a bad smell in the air, not to mention his attempt to lobby for Gaddafi and make a buck or two (or ten million) off the NATO debacle unleashed in Libya:
All that aside though, this “terrorism expert” suddenly decides to move back to Montana just last year, taking a break from his lucrative war driven wheeling and dealing, to enter the race for governor? Should I not be at least a little suspicious? In the meantime, his running mate, Ryan Zinke, a former Navy SEAL whose unit purportedly went on to “kill Bin Laden”, is now visiting Montana election meet-ups dressed in the most insincere cowboy costume I have ever laid eyes on complete with ten-gallon hat and giant gold belt buckle with “Montana” etched in bold letters, as if to say “hey ya’ll, I’m just like you!” At the end of the meeting I attended, Zinke suggested that Montana solve its employment issues with “predator drone factories” (of course). As he left, he actually exclaimed “go predator drones!”
Bottom line, whether you are dealing with presidential candidates, or state candidates, a record of getting into bed (and into business) with the military industrial complex is probably not a good sign that the representative will respect civilian rights or the Constitution. Certainly, he will say that he loves liberty, but by being instrumental in the spread of globalism, he has proven otherwise, and is not to be trusted.
6) Does It Feel Like They Are Just Telling You What You Want To Hear?
Every candidate at the first gubernatorial debates in Montana was quick to use the words “states rights”, at least when it came to the EPA and resource development. Livingstone even served up a vague threat of arresting federal representatives who cross into Montana (which, oddly, doesn’t seem to have the same bite after learning his background). However, only one candidate, Bob Fanning (and running mate Chuck Baldwin) was willing to put himself on the line, promising to nullify federal incursions into Montana, protect medical marijuana, build a state sponsored militia (as the Constitution demands), deny the socialist doctrines of Obamacare, and insulate Montana’s economy using decentralized methods and legitimate free markets.
The difference between Fanning and the other candidates was evident after hearing his goals and solutions. They’re plans were broad, and dubious. His were direct and decisively outlined. They’re stances against Federal encroachment felt hollow, or deceitful, while Fanning’s resolve was absolute. Sometimes, intuition is as good a measure of a candidate as factual research. If your gut is telling you the man in front of you is a fake, it may be wise to ponder the thought for a moment.
7) Where Are They Getting Their Money From?
In the 2012 presidential elections, only one candidate is raising the majority of his funds from average citizens instead of corporate backers. Only one candidate has received a majority support from active serving military. Only one candidate has done all of this through grassroots methods, despite being relentlessly attacked or ignored by the mainstream media. Of course, I’m talking about Ron Paul.
If global banking interests are pumping their donations into a particular candidate’s campaign, that candidate should be automatically categorized as unelectable. Sadly, this is not how our world works right now. “Follow the money” should be the first rule of the American voter. If Mitt Romney, for instance, is being backed by the exact same corporate financiers as Barack Obama, then one should be led to question whether or not there is absolutely any difference between them. Apparently, global banks don’t seem to think so, so why should you?
If elitists refuse to spend a single penny on a specific candidate, then it is a sure bet that candidate is a threat to the status quo, and therefore, should be on the top of your list as a potential representative.
In the end, it will be difficult if not impossible to change this country in the midst of the current political climate. This means that the climate must evolve or be done away with completely. I believe 2012 may be our last chance to establish a governmental environment conducive to freedom. If we fail to educate ourselves and others on the warning signs listed above, then political options will disappear. We will be left with no other choice but a violent and prolonged conflict with those who would demolish American Constitutionalism. Perhaps this is inevitable regardless of election results, but the fact remains that we must try every other available avenue first.
I have never been a fan of politics, but I know that this is only because the system now in place is constructed to discourage me, and everyone else, from trying to make a difference. Playing by the rules of the establishment system is useless, but there are other roads we might take. We can, indeed, make our own rules, and start a new game on more even ground, as long as we find the right candidates, cast off agents of distraction, and at the very least, attack the issues at a local level with every ounce of strength we have. Putting a Constitutional candidate like Ron Paul into the Oval Office, though excitingly possible, will not be enough. We must also pursue the same standards in our states, and draw a line in the sand around our respective communities.
Even with rigged electronic voting, media manipulation, and political co-option, I feel our efforts this year will resonate for many decades to come. Whether we are able to take back social power for regular citizens is not as important as making them aware that they have allowed themselves to lose that power in the first place. The elections of 2012, ultimately, should be treated as a vehicle for enlightenment, and this enlightenment begins when we are able to recognize the lies we live, and the men who sell them to us . . . .