Analysis of FDR's First Inaugural Speech - Why No American Should Vote Democrat. Ever.

By Anna Von Reitz

For you --- the First Inaugural Speech of FDR, which is the only one that truly counts, de-constructed with all key legal terms of art in purple.  These are all terms that a person with a normal 7th or 8th grade education (the standard for law written at this time) could not possibly be expected to know as legal terms apart from their common meaning.  Please note that two days later on March 6, 1933, FDR addressed The Conference of Governors (private, Territorial) and secured the "pledge" of "their states" and "citizenry thereof"---- which could only and exclusively mean the British Territorial United States and the Territorial States of States put in place during the Reconstruction Era:

SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1933

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.
Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States--a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.
In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others-- the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer,pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.
Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for un-delayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis--broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.
We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stem performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.
In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.
______________________________________________________
Comment:  each and every single one of the words appearing in purple are special legal terms and words of art having particular meanings and implications that no eighth grader on Earth could be expected to know. 
What he basically said in "Federal-ese" is that he was going to conscript everyone, seize upon their lives and property as "gifts", "pledge" it all to royal and religious institutional creditors (primarily the Holy See), regulate everything especially labor and utilities to high Hell for government profits, re-distribute wealth and displace populations,  impose gag orders on the media, and prey upon the actual American People for the "good" of the "democracy" of the "United States" ----which virtually everyone in that audience interpreted as meaning The United States and as America, not the separate foreign hegemony of the deceptively similarly-named British Territorial United States. 
Anyone still want to claim that it was "our fault" and that we '"voluntarily" "consented" to all of this crap and that we were given "full disclosure" of what FDR set in motion and all the false claims in commerce and the false conscriptions and confiscations that he and his pals in the Democratic Party pulled against the innocent American States and People?  

----------------------------

See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

Dual Versus Singular Citizenship

By Anna Von Reitz

One of the things that sets "U.S. Citizenship" apart from American State Citizenship is duality. The Federales --- from their standpoint anyway --- are content to let you keep your "state citizenship" intact and still also be considered a "U.S. Citizen". As it says in their 14th Amendment --- "citizen of the United States" and "the state in which they reside".

[Please note --- it's their 14th Amendment, not ours, and it's an "Amendment" to their corporation's Articles of Incorporation disguised as "a" Constitution. And you are right, their 14th Amendment was never ratified by the States of the Union, for the simple reason that amending the By-Laws of a Scottish commercial corporation only requires approval by the Board of Directors --- in this case, the Territorial United States Congress.]

The problem is that the Federales can't alter the rules that the States adopted, which require a single State Citizenship.

The actual States don't recognize Dual Citizenship. You are either a Minnesotan or you are not.

It doesn't matter to them if you came from Germany or Zimbabwe. You have the option once you have immigrated through the U.S. and established your new permanent domicile on the land of Minnesota to declare yourself a Minnesotan.

When you do, you have to leave all other claims of foreign allegiance and nationality behind. The Founders considered Dual Citizenship to be "serving two Masters" and an inherent "conflict of interest" that could not be condoned.

So, if you wish to retain your identity as a Wisconsinite, you have to go whole hog or none.

Wisconsin will not recognize you as one of its own if you voluntarily retain any other political allegiance, including any allegiance to the Territorial State of Wisconsin or the Municipal STATE OF WISCONSIN. You have to cleave to the actual State and not merely "reside" there on a temporary basis, if you want to be recognized as an American State Citizen.

Throughout most of our history this was clearly understood and it was also understood that our people sometimes migrated back and forth between their State Citizenship and "United States Citizenship". Men who served in the military were considered to be on a temporary "loan" to the United States and to be "residing" in Federal jurisdiction during their period of service obligation, but returned home upon discharge from the service. Same thing with Congressional Delegates, who did their business in the District of Columbia, and then returned home to their home States.

The First Naturalization Act passed by the United States Congress described a lengthy process by which an American State Citizen could transition to permanent United States Citizenship, if they wished to do so. It required posting Notices over time and supporting oneself without public assistance and committing no felonies, etc., There is no doubt that adopting "United States Citizenship" versus birthright citizenship as a Citizen of Maine, was a sober, deliberate, and lengthy process.

Also, all new immigrants had to pass through "United States Citizenship" before adopting a final State Citizenship, and again, the decision to adopt State Citizenship required deliberate action on the part of each one.

Say that you came from Germany originally. You would first pass through the Naturalization process and become a "United States Citizen". You were then free to move about the country and not subject to the INS anymore, no green cards, no quasi-parole status as a visitor--- but you were not a State Citizen.

In order to become a State Citizen, you had to (and still have to) meet other requirements and make the deliberate choice to "declare" your intention and publish it and establish a home in the State of your choice and stay there for a stipulated period of time (usually a year) without committing any felonies or making use of public assistance.

There is a famous case from Minnesota (Rheume) that discusses the necessity of immigrants declaring their State Citizenship.

The fundamental difference is that "U.S. Citizens" occupy the Federal jurisdiction within a State and "reside" in the federated "States of States", whereas State Citizens live in their State of the Union.

Example: An active duty Lieutenant in the US Air Force lives in the State of South Dakota, but my friend Anne lives in South Dakota "proper".

Think in terms of Army bases like Fort Hood, for example, which exists within the borders of Texas. You have people from every State who live within the confines of Fort Hood which is Federal Territory within Texas and for the term of their service obligation, all those active duty personnel are "U.S. Citizens" living in the "State of Texas" even though they may have been born in Texas and have their natural birthright nationality and citizenship as Texans.

When they leave active duty and inform the General Staff of the Army that they are returning home to Texas and their birthright political status, they pop back into view as Texans and as State Citizens of Texas.

The British Territorial United States and the Municipal United States oligarchy run by the members of the Territorial Congress have long sought to keep everyone in the status of "U.S. Citizen" because that allows them to tax and control and make claims against the assets of the people involved. It is that monetary self-interest that has led to most of the abuses we now suffer and also to the corruption of the courts and the obfuscation of the facts about State Citizenship.

They don't want you to know that you can adopt your lawful State Citizenship and enjoy your freedoms and the guarantees of the Constitutions, because they lose money and control when you renounce "U.S. Citizenship" in favor of, for example, Texas Citizenship.

Nonetheless it is your birthright as an American, and so long as you are not a federal employee, dependent, or "voluntarily" operating as a U.S. corporation, THEY have nothing to say about it, except, "Yes, Sir!"

----------------------------

See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

$100 Reward --- Find the Missing "Republic"

By Anna Von Reitz

Times being what they are, and the expenses of The Living Law Firm being what they are, I can't afford to offer a big reward (on the off chance that I have to pay up) but I am sick and tired of having to argue about this with knot heads and I will pay $100 of my own money to anyone who can prove that a singular national "Republic" exists.  

Yes, there was/is a "Grand Army of the Republic" --- the Union Army during the Civil War. 

Yes, there was/is a song called "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". 

Yes, there is an oblique reference in "The Pledge of Allegiance" to "the Republic for which it stands."

Yes, Ben Franklin is reported to have told a by-stander when asked what kind of government we have --- "A Republic.  If you can keep it."

And yes, we are guaranteed a "republican form of government" in the Constitution.

We even have "The Supreme Republican Declaration of the United Colonies of America". 

But nowhere can I find in any of this any substantiating proof that "a" Republic was ever formed on this Continent to represent all the state republics.

Instead, what I find is a consistent reference to our Federation of States, The United States of America ---- the unincorporated version.  And it only operates in international jurisdiction. 

If any of you researchers out there can shed light on this question, please weigh in.  The monetary reward is slight, but the satisfaction of proving me wrong might be worth something, right? 

I've looked.  I can't find it. And until some proof surfaces ---and despite the popular references and belief that "a" Republic exists--- I say "the" Republic is the Civil War Era equivalent of an Urban Myth.

Many of our researchers are hurting financially and having a hard time keeping the lights on and the printer ink in stock.  They are asking me for help and so I have to turn to all of you reading this. 

If you can see how important it is for us to know the truth about our history and government --- and be able to prove it --- please consider "joining the party" and doing some research yourself or helping to support the expenses of those who do.  We take donations to the cause via my PayPal account:

avannavon@gmail.com and via snail mail: Anna Maria Riezinger, c/o Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska 99652.

----------------------------

See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

The Wage of Fraud

By Anna Von Reitz

The wage of fraud is confusion.

Let's straighten out everyone's thinking right here and now.

No actual government can be incorporated.

The reason for this is that the moment you incorporate anything, a charter is issued by another, different sovereign entity---thereby subjecting it to the authority of the other sovereign.

Scotland can't issue a charter for the actual government of America.  At most, the nasty vermin can infringe on our international copyright and create a commercial corporation doppelganger.  Which is precisely what they did in 1868 and what they are trying to do now.

And as for Keith Livingway and T-Roh they are trying to capitalize on the original Scottish fraud of 1868, trying to say that they bought an interest in that defunct Scottish commercial corporation and therefore now own America.

Good luck with that bull crap.

"The United States of America, Incorporated" created in 1868 in Scotland was chartered by the Scottish Government, not the American Government.

And this defunct Scottish entity owes us a helluva lot of money.  It's just a matter of how hard we want to press the issue of their fraud at this late date. Bank of Scotland, do you hear me?  BIS? 

As you can see, it isn't even possible for any entity incorporated by any other government to be our government.

And it is the same way for the "United States of America" Inc. chartered by the Roman Catholic Church in Delaware in 1925.  That entity is subject to Delaware, which is obviously not able to act as "the" government of this country. 

There is one and only one lawful government of this country still standing in international jurisdiction, and that is The United States of America [Unincorporated] and the member States ---- Wisconsin, Kentucky, Maine, Texas, and so on. 

The Universal Postal Union knows that it has contracts with the unincorporated version so none of the idiocy being promoted by Keith Livingway  and "T-Roh" will be honored.

A incorporated entity acting "as" a government is not a government.

Because the fraud artists created all these deceptively named incorporated entities in foreign countries there is a lot of confusion.  Most recently we have had to deal with "The Republic of the United States of America" (France) and "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (Scotland--- again!)

But all these incorporated impostors are not our government and can't be our government.  They are merely identity thieves trying to get a governmental services contract by a process of "assumption" long after we have told all of them, including Keith Livingway's group, thanks, but no thanks. 

All this fraud has to end.

Apparently, some officers in the military thought that because there was a "Grand Army of the Republic" that there had to be "a" Republic, but in fact, the lawful government of our country in international jurisdiction is now and has always been a Federation of States (not a Confederation of States of States) operated in tandem with state Republics---- fifty of them. 

So, please, everyone, get your heads clear on the subject of sovereignty and subjection.  Incorporated entities are always 100% of the time subject to a sovereign entity.  I think all Americans can agree on the fact that our government is not now and never has been chartered by Scotland or France.

Let's bring all this confusion to a halt and end all the fraud as well.

----------------------------

See this article and over 1300 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.

How To Identify The People Who Truly Do NOT Get It

I don't always agree with my friend Chuck Baldwin, but on this topic he is dead right.
I found this latest article on Chuck Baldwin Live here:  
https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3799/How-To-Identify-The-People-Who-Truly-Do-NOT-Get-It.aspx

Paul Stramer

Published: Thursday, October 25, 2018  By Chuck Baldwin Download free computerized mp3 audio file of this column After many, many years in the “patriot” movement, it is my studied opinion that most of the so-called patriots who claim to “get it” really don’t. Ditto for most of the “patriot” radio talk show hosts, columnists and Internet bloggers. The reality is that there are very few people who seem to truly understand the big picture and who possess the sagacity to discern the real war that is raging around us—which helps to explain, of course, why nothing much ever changes. What follows are three of the tell-tale signs that people truly do NOT get it. 1. They believe that the Deep State is mostly confined to the Democrat Party and people such as George Soros. In essence, these folks are totally immersed in the Republican-Democrat, left-right, conservative-liberal false paradigm. Soros has helped finance both Democrats and Republicans (including Donald Trump). And while so-called conservative Republicans use George Soros as a poster child of the enemy, they RUN to Las Vegas to meet with Sheldon Adelson in hopes of procuring his financial and political blessings. And, frankly, between the two, Adelson is a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties than Soros. Yet, “conservatives” love Adelson and despise Soros. These people truly do NOT get it. By definition, the Deep State is not conspicuous. It is hidden deeply out of sight where it can work unobserved and unfettered. Furthermore, the Deep State moves comfortably and seamlessly among both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Deep State will use conservatives as effectively as liberals and vice versa. It uses Democrats to attack our 2nd Amendment liberties and Republicans to attack our 4th Amendment liberties. No matter which party is in control of the Congress or the White House, the Deep State agenda presses on almost unimpeded—and, yes, that includes having Donald Trump in the White House. People such as George Soros are merely headliners to give “patriots” a visible target to shoot at, while the real power brokers infiltrate many of the very organizations that are openly opposing people such as Soros. Understand this: All of the bitterness and political hate speech going on between liberals and conservatives, between Democrats and Republicans, is nothing but public theater. Some of the rancor and bitterness is indeed genuine, of course, while some of it is as phony as a three dollar bill. But ALL of it only serves to provide cover for the real power brokers who are manipulating the left and the right for their own purposes. Deep State moguls couldn’t care less about all of the arguing and bickering going on between the two parties, except as it provides them with an effective distraction from the things they really care about, knowing that at the end of the day, both parties will continue to further their agenda. People who are caught up in the phony left-right paradigm truly do NOT get it. 2. They believe that Islamists are our enemies and Zionists are our friends. On this subject, the vast majority of evangelical Christians are proving themselves to be absolute dupes. Think this through: On the one hand, “Christians” and “conservatives” spend countless hours, expend limitless energy and spend millions of dollars demonizing Muslims. The threat of Muslims justifies the “War on Terror.” The threat of Muslims justifies a burgeoning Police State. The threat of Muslims is promoted in fundraising letters, periodicals, books, radio broadcasts, TV shows, etc., by practically every “conservative” political and religious organization in the country. Part of Donald Trump’s popularity among “conservatives” and “Christians” is the manner in which he invokes fear of and hatred toward Muslims. Ditto for the vast majority of Christian pastors and television evangelists. They all promote the mass killing of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. But on the other hand, they all happily endorse sending billions of dollars in arms and munitions to the Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Muslims in Iran are said to be our enemies, but Muslims in Saudi Arabia are our “allies.” REALLY? What kind of hallucinogenic are they ingesting? The truth is, the most violent, bloodthirsty people in the Muslim world today are the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabis are the ones who were used to form terror groups such as ISIS, al-Nusra, etc. Wahhabis are the ones who are murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children in Yemen and throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. Wahhabis are the ones who round up and torture, maim, dismember, imprison and murder Christians, Jews AND non-Wahhabi Muslims within Saudi Arabia. If you believe the official story of 9/11, it was Wahhabi Muslims from Saudi Arabia that flew those jets into the Twin Towers. Yet, America sends billions of dollars in weapons to the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia—and “conservatives” and “Christians” are all for it. A few days ago, TV evangelist Pat Robertson used his vast Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) to defend America’s friendship and partnership with the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Why must Americans hate and bomb and kill Shia Muslims in Iran and Syria, while at the same time, we must befriend, partner with, and finance Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia—and even look the other way as they inflict the cruelest and most evil acts of barbarity and bloodshed? In typical bloodthirsty fashion, Wahhabi Muslims murdered a permanent U.S. resident, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi (who was openly critical of the Saudi regime), and what did President Trump do? He boldly proclaimed Wahhabi Muslim Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s denial of any culpability in Khashoggi’s murder to be “credible.” Trump further said he has no plans to interfere with the $110 billion arms deal with Salman. It is a total coincidence, of course, that at the very moment Trump was providing cover for the Wahhabi government of Saudi Arabia, Prince Salman was transferring over $100 million to Trump’s government in the United States. I’m sure it is also a coincidence that Donald Trump owes his financial survival to the Wahhabi Muslims in Saudi Arabia who bailed Trump out of at least two financial bankruptcies—as did the Zionists in Israel. As an aside, Donald Trump seems to have a penchant to cover up or even defend violence. During a recent Montana rally, Trump praised Republican Congressman Greg Gianforte, saying “he’s my guy.” What made Gianforte Trump’s guy? He physically attacked London Guardian newspaper reporter Ben Jacobs and body-slammed him to the floor in a violent, unprovoked attack. So much for Trump and Gianforte’s devotion to the First Amendment and the unalienable right to life. Gianforte is a large man who could have very easily broken the reporter’s back or neck in the unprovoked attack—an attack that he initially denied until it was discovered that the whole thing was captured on audio. (Listen to the audio and hear how the reporter was calmly asking Gianforte a question and how Gianforte exploded into a rage and body slammed the reporter without warning.) Fortunately, the reporter’s injuries were not severe. The congressman then pleaded guilty to the assault and was given a slap on the wrist. I submit that what Saudi Prince Salman did to U.S. resident journalist Khashoggi (attack and kill him) and what Congressman Greg Gianforte did to London Guardian newspaper reporter Ben Jacobs (attack and body slam him) was only a difference of degree. Both journalists were attacked (because a member of the power elite didn’t like what they were reporting): One was injured; the other was killed. But it was the same evil, hate-filled heart that committed both crimes. And Donald Trump fully supports both of these vicious attackers. (Oh! Did I mention that Gianforte is very rich? He is.) But I digress. Where is the fear mongering and hate mongering toward the Wahhabi Muslims of Saudi Arabia from America’s “conservatives” and “Christians?” Not only do “conservatives” and “Christians” make (non-Wahhabi) Muslims their perpetual scapegoats; they totally and thoroughly embrace Jewish Zionists as their best friends. Never mind that Zionists have done more to destroy America’s historic Christian culture than any group of people on the planet; never mind that Zionists have taken control of the mainstream media (that “conservatives” and “Christians” love to hate); never mind that Zionist money and influence have polluted America’s entertainment industries and political institutions; never mind that the Zionist State of Israel is a bloodthirsty apartheid state; never mind that Zionist Israel is (along with Wahhabi Muslim Saudi Arabia) the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. Never mind that Christians have been duped and deceived by C.I. Scofield’s Israel-based prophecy propaganda; never mind that under Christ’s New Covenant, the Zionists of Israel are no more “God’s chosen people” than the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. Never mind any of that. To “conservatives” and “Christians” everywhere, Israel is our “friend.” I’m telling you: People who want to demonize the Muslim states (except Saudi Arabia, of course) and idolize the State of Israel do NOT get it—not in any form or fashion. I strongly encourage readers to get my 15-message, 7-DVD series The Israel Package. For many years I, too, was caught up in the Israel deception—until I began to honestly and objectively study the issue for myself. These 15 messages contain the truth about the State of Israel. If God could open my eyes to the truth about Israel, He can open the eyes of others—IF they have a truly objective, honest heart and mind, of course. This package of 15 messages and 7 DVDs is discounted significantly in order to help people purchase it. I hope you will order The Israel Package. 3. They believe that Donald Trump is a superhero who is fighting the Deep State. These people truly do NOT get it. Again, the Deep State is apolitical. Left and right, conservative and liberal mean nothing to the Deep State. Until the American people wake up to that fact—and wake up to the fact that the primary focus and agenda of the Deep State is PERPETUAL WAR—they will always be in the dark about the Deep State. For the Deep State, the name of the game is WAR. War advances the goals and enriches the pockets of Deep State moguls more than anything else in the world. “Nation-building,” “regime-change,” “fighting terror,” “exporting democracy,” etc., are the rubrics under which the Deep State wages its perpetual never-ending wars. This is what the Deep State is all about. To know whether a politician—especially a President—is in the pocket of the Deep State, look no further than the way he or she wages war. And anyone who is even halfway objective and awake can see that Donald Trump has become one of the Deep State’s most effective servants. I’ll say it straight out: The Deep State doesn’t hate or fear Donald Trump; it loves Donald Trump, because Donald Trump is the warmonger’s warmonger. Donald Trump is on a pace to drop more bombs and kill more innocent people during his first four years in office than Barack Obama did during eight years in office. In fact, Trump is dropping a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes. This report notes: We now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096. If the Deep State loved Obama, it absolutely adores Trump, because Donald Trump is escalating the Warfare State “to infinity and beyond.” Last Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence even suggested that the Trump administration is considering deploying nuclear weapons into outer space. This report is spot-on: The United States’ economy is a military-industrial complex. Therefore any multilateral arms control treaty that limits weapons and war tensions is by definition incompatible with the functioning of American-style capitalism. President Donald Trump’s announced intention of withdrawing the US from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is but the latest move by Washington in undoing decades of hard-won arms controls agreements. The US unilaterally scrapped the Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) Treaty back in 2002 under then-President GW Bush. That breach of a decades-old treaty has led to the installation of American missile systems in Europe ever-closer to Russian territory, as the US-led NATO military alliance relentlessly expanded eastwards. By abandoning the INF, the US will have license to expand missile forces towards Russian and Chinese territory. Such an aggressive move could not be done openly for political reasons. Therefore, Washington is finding a pretext for its own violations by accusing Moscow of breaching the INF. Russia has repeatedly rejected US claims that it has violated the treaty, pointing out that the American side has never presented evidence to back up its claims. The bigger picture [is] the US economy as a war-driven system. With an annual spend of over $700 billion on military – about half the total discretionary US budget and multiples more than any other foreign nation – the American economy is dependent on its military-industrial complex. That monstrous deformation of American capitalism, first warned by President Eisenhower in 1961, can only exist in the realm of relentless weapons production. That, in turn, relies on the US constantly creating global tensions and uncertainty, even to the point of inciting war. Senator Rand Paul said: This is why John Bolton shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near US foreign policy. This [pulling out of the INF treaty] would undo decades of bipartisan arms control dating from Reagan. We shouldn’t do it. Here are Dr. Ron Paul’s sagacious remarks contained in an interview with RT.com: The US is saturated with weapons and doesn't need a new nuclear build-up, former congressman Ron Paul has told RT, commenting on President Donald Trump's threat to quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces in Europe (INF) treaty. The former Republican congressman and head of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity told RT that he doesn't believe a potential US withdrawal from the 1987 treaty would do anything to enhance US security. Trump, if he follows through with his threat and tears down the landmark treaty, signed between US President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, "won't do us any good," Paul said. The US military industrial complex will try to justify the nuclear build-up by pointing to China's militarization, a growing source of concern for the military establishment. "It means that the American government, the military industrial complex wants to make a lot more weapons, because it is the Chinese: 'The Chinese are making all those weapons, why can't' we?'" Paul doesn't believe that the supposed Chinese menace is a legitimate reason to keep churning out more weapons. “We have enough weapons, not only to self-destruct but to destroy the world 10 times over and we don't need to worry about not having enough weapons around.” If the US pulls out of the treaty, it's not because there is any need for more weaponry. "I don't think that's a real argument," Paul said. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, writes this about Trump’s decision to withdraw from the INF treaty: It has taken the US military/security complex 31 years to get rid of President Reagan’s last nuclear disarmament achievement—the INF Treaty that President Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev achieved in 1987. The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was ratified by the US Senate on May 27, 1988 and became effective a few days later on June 1. Behind the scenes, I had some role in this, and as I remember what the treaty achieved was to make Europe safe from nuclear attack by Soviet short and intermediate range missiles, and to make the Soviet Union safe from US attack from short and intermediate range US nuclear missiles in Europe. By restricting nuclear weapons to ICBMs, which allowed some warning time, thus guaranteeing retaliation and non-use of nuclear weapons, the INF Treaty was regarded as reducing the risk of an American first-strike on Russia and a Russian first-strike on Europe, strikes that could be delivered by low-flying cruise missiles with next to zero warning time. When President Reagan appointed me to a secret Presidential committee with subpoena power over the CIA, he told the members of the secret committee that his aim was to bring the Cold War to an end, with the result that, in his words, “those God-awful nuclear weapons would be dismantled.” President Reagan, unlike the crazed neoconservatives, who he fired and prosecuted, saw no point in nuclear war that would destroy all life on earth. The INF Treaty was the beginning, in Reagan’s mind, of the elimination of nuclear weapons from military arsenals. The INF Treaty was chosen as the first start because it did not substantially threaten the budget of the US military/security complex, and actually increased the security of the Soviet military. In other words, it was something that Reagan and Gorbachev could get past their own military establishments. Reagan hoped that as trust built, more nuclear disarmament would proceed. Now that President Reagan’s remaining achievement has been destroyed, what are the consequences of the Trump administration’s concession to the profits of the US military/security complex? There are many, none good. The massive US military/security complex profits will increase as more increasingly scarce American resources flow into the production of intermediate range missiles in order to counter “the Russian threat.” The Republicans will want to pay for this by cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Zionist neoconservatives now have their hope rekindled of re-establishing American and Israeli hegemony with an undetected first strike nuclear cruise missile attack on Russia. The vast majority of the peoples in the world have no idea what is happening. They are trying to find or to keep jobs, to provide housing and food, to find the money for a mortgage or car or credit card payment in the US, and in much of the world water to drink and a bit of food to eat. They are stressed out. They have no energy to confront bad news or to figure out what is happening. Donald Trump’s war fever is dangerously high. No wonder quintessential war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham suddenly loves Donald Trump. Trump is pushing the war envelope to every part of the globe. Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Venezuela are all under threat of imminent military—or even nuclear—attack by Donald Trump. Is Trump a madman, or is he merely the Deep State’s most loyal subject? It really won’t matter when the mushroom clouds start going up. Anyone who believes that Donald Trump is fighting the Deep State truly does NOT get it. There are many more tell-tale signs of how to identify people who do NOT get it, of course. But none are more glaring than the three listed in this column. Remember these signs as you listen to your “patriot” friends and our politicians talk, and they will never be able to buffalo you again. © Chuck Baldwin