Constitution

Know The Constitution Or Get Ready For No Constitution

Technocracy and its Technocrat practitioners have always hated the U.S. Constitution and are doing everything in their power to effectively destroy it. When the turmoil reaches epic proportions, it will be ultimately suspended altogether. ⁃ TN Editor

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?

Nothing good.

In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

Read full story here…




Google Whistleblower

The Whistleblower Who Exposed Google’s Deep Conspiracy To Overthrow The U.S. Government

Zachary Vorhies discovered the pure evil intent of Google when he realized that it intended to overthrow the U.S. government. He put his career on the line to expose hundreds of internal Google documents. ⁃ TN Editor
 

A Google insider who anonymously leaked internal documents to Project Veritas made the decision to go public in an on-the-record video interview. The insider, Zachary Vorhies, decided to go public after receiving a letter from Google, and after he says Google allegedly called the police to perform a “wellness check” on him.

Along with the interview, Vorhies asked Project Veritas to publish more of the internal Google documents he had previously leaked. Said Vorhies:

“I gave the documents to Project Veritas, I had been collecting the documents for over a year. And the reason why I collected these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious going on with the company and I realized that there were going to not only tamper with the elections, but use that tampering with the elections to essentially overthrow the United States.”

In June of 2019, Project Veritas published internal Google documents revealing “algorithmic unfairness.” Vorhies told Project Veritas these were documents that were widely available to full-time Google employees:

“These documents were available to every single employee within the company that was full-time. And so as a fulltime employee at the company, I just searched for some keywords and these documents started to pop up. And so once I started finding one document and started finding keywords for other documents and I would enter that in and continue this cycle until I had a treasure trove and archive of documents that clearly spelled out the system, what they’re attempting to do in very clear language.”

Shortly after the report including the “algorithmic unfairness” documents was published, Vorhies received a letter from Google containing several “demands.” Vorhies told Project Veritas that he complied with Google’s demands, which included a request for any internal Google documents he may have personally retained. Vorhies also said he sent those documents to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

After having been identified by an anonymous account (which Vorhies believes belongs to a Google employee,) on social media as a “leaker,” Vorhies was approached by law enforcement at his residence in California. According to Vorhies, San Francisco police received a call from Google which prompted a “wellness check.”

Vorhies described the incident to Project Veritas:

“they got inside the gate, the police, and they started banging on my door… And so the police decided that they were going to call in additional forces. They called in the FBI, they called in the SWAT team. And they called in a bomb squad.”

“[T]his is a large way in which [Google tries to] intimidate their employees that go rogue on the company…”

Partial video of the incident was provided to Project Veritas. San Francisco police confirmed to Project Veritas that they did receive a “mental health call,” and responded to Vorhies’ address that day.

“Google Snowden moment”

Project Veritas has released hundreds of internal Google documents leaked by Vorhies. Among those documents is a file called “news black list site for google now.” The document, according to Vorhies, is a “black list,” which restricts certain websites from appearing on news feeds for an Android Google product. The list includes conservative and progressive websites, such as newsbusters.org and mediamatters.org. The document says that some sites are listed with or because of a “high user block rate.”

Read full story here…




When Big Tech And Big Government Partner To Track Everyone Everywhere

Who is leading whom? The Technocrats of Big Tech can lead government around by the nose, because they have the ultimate tools of scientific social engineering and the government does not. ⁃ TN Editor
 

George Orwell was a brilliant individual.  A man of incredible insight – and foresight.

In his unfathomably predictive novel 1984, Orwell warns of Big Brother:

“(O)stensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power ‘for its own sake’ over the inhabitants.

“In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens.…The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan ‘Big Brother is watching you’: a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.

“In modern culture, the term ‘Big Brother’ has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties, often specifically related to mass surveillance.”

As brilliant as Orwell was, something continuously struck me as incorrect as I read 1984.

Orwell’s government – was extraordinarily competent in its totalitarian imposition of technological power.

In Reality – no government in the history of man has ever been even remotely close to that competent.

For Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia to become Reality – Big Government would need private sector help.

Enter private sector Big Tech.

Big Tech has delivered much of the technology Orwell envisioned.  As but one of many examples – Orwell’s telescreens:

(D)evices that operate as televisions, security cameras, and microphones….(T)elescreens are used by the ruling Party in the totalitarian fictional State of Oceania to keep its subjects under constant surveillance, thus eliminating the chance of secret conspiracies against Oceania.”

We’re already all the way there – via Big Tech.

How Google and Amazon Are ‘Spying’ on You:

“The study found that digital assistants (Google Home and Amazon Echo) can be ‘awake’ even when users think they aren’t listening….

“(T)he devices listen all the time they are turned on – and Amazon has envisioned Alexa using that information to build profiles on anyone in the room….

“Amazon filed a patent application for an algorithm that would let future versions of the device identify statements of interest, such as ‘I love skiing’, enabling the speaker to be monitored based on their interests and targeted for related advertising.

“A Google patent application describes using a future release of it smart Home system to monitor and control everything from screen time and hygiene habits, to meal and travel schedules and other activities.

“The devices are envisioned as part of a surveillance web in the home to chart a families’ patterns….”

This is ALL insanely creepy.

Big Tech is…insanely big.

Microsoft (Market Cap: $1.1 trillion)

Amazon (Market Cap: $942 billion)

Google (Market Cap: $775 billion)

Facebook (Market Cap: $550 billion)

These four spying companies – are currently worth a combined $3.7 trillion.  Our nation’s entire economy – is $19.4 trillion.

Which means these four companies – all by themselves – are worth 19% of the United States.

But it’s Big Tech doing the spying – not Big Government.

Anyone who looks at Big Tech’s all-encompassing spying ability and thinks Big Government is capable of doing anything remotely similar – hasn’t paid attention to the past 10,000 years of human history.

The ONLY way Big Government can impose Big Brother – is to partner with Big Tech.

Uh oh.

The Role of Tech Companies in Government Surveillance

Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program

Four High-Tech Ways the Federal Government Is Spying on Private Citizens:

“Right now, the government is tracking the movements of private citizens by GPS, reading private citizens’ emails, and possibly even reading what you’re saying on Facebook.”

Big Tech once offered at least token resistance to Big Government’s demands – at least after being outed for acquiescing to Big Government’s demands.

Facebook, Amazon, Google Call for Government Surveillance Reform:

“It first gained attention after the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013. Congress is in the process of weighing reforms for the program. It must vote to renew Section 702 before the end of the year, otherwise it will expire.

“The letter, addressed to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asks Congress to consider several reforms to the program to ensure greater transparency and privacy protections.”

We can now officially refer to those – as the Good Old Days.

Why would Big Tech fight Big Government – when they can get paid to join them?

And the Big Government-Big Tech surveillance state – is getting closer and closer to home.

In fact – just outside…and inside it.

Amazon’s Helping Police Build a Surveillance Network with Ring Doorbells:

“Police departments across the country, from major cities like Houston to towns with fewer than 30,000 people, have offered free or discounted Ring doorbells to citizens, sometimes using taxpayer funds to pay for Amazon’s products.

“While Ring owners are supposed to have a choice on providing police footage, in some giveaways, police require recipients to turn over footage when requested….

“(T)he sheer number of cameras run by Amazon’s Ring business raises questions about privacy involving both law enforcement and tech giants….(C)ritics have pointed out the retail giant’s (other) ventures with law enforcement, like offering facial recognition tools….

“More than 50 local police departments across the US have partnered with Ring over the last two years, lauding how the Amazon-owned product allows them to access security footage in areas that typically don’t have cameras — on suburban doorsteps….

“‘What we have here is a perfect marriage between law enforcement and one of the world’s biggest companies creating conditions for a society that few people would want to be a part of,’ said Mohammad Tajsar, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.”

That’s the outside of your home.  Here’s the in….

The Government Just Admitted It Will Use Smart Home Devices for Spying:

“If you want evidence that US intelligence agencies aren’t losing surveillance abilities because of the rising use of encryption by tech companies, look no further than the testimony…by the (then) director of national intelligence, James Clapper….

“Clapper made clear that the internet of things – the many devices like thermostats, cameras and other appliances that are increasingly connected to the internet – are providing ample opportunity for intelligence agencies to spy on targets, and possibly the masses. And it’s a danger that many consumers who buy these products may be wholly unaware of….

“Privacy advocates have known about the potential for government to exploit the internet of things for years. Law enforcement agencies have taken notice too, increasingly serving court orders on companies for data they keep that citizens might not even know they are transmitting. Police have already been asking Google-owned company Dropcam for footage from cameras inside people’s homes meant to keep an eye on their kids.”

Orwell got the tech right – just not Big Government’s ability to create it for totalitarian ends.

Freedom has allowed for the free markets – that allowed the rise of the private sector Big Tech Orwell thought Big Government would produce.

And now Big Tech and Big Government are partnering – to end that freedom.

Well…for we plebeians, anyway.

I’m sure Big Tech and Big Government will be just fine.

Read full story here…




An Age of Insanity When an Ex-Barmaid Has a National Voice

 It is a disturbing experience to listen to the rambling comments of 30-year old ex-barmaid, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). As you listen to the ignorance, inaccuracies, and naïve views, you understand why the Founding Fathers limited the age of eligibility for President to 35. The question is why do her views receive so much attention?

The answer is because a group of technocrats saw an opportunity to push non-issues onto the stage without the danger of association. It is a technique seen as essential for control in today’s insane world. It is called plausible deniability and Obama was probably as good a practitioner as any to date.

If you lack the abilities required to wangle your way to the top or prefer to control from the shadows, then a public figure is an alternative. Obama started as such, a person chosen by George Soros and created by Valerie Jarrett. He was only supposed to serve one term but became enamored of the power and privilege of the job. In Obama’s third year Soros announced he would not support him for a second term. By that point, Obama decided to run and only succeeded because three million Republicans refused to vote for Romney.

The Democrats have no clear political leader or even a potential leader on the horizon. The ones who are apparently considering the position are so far left that they guarantee a loss at the next election. A large number of Democrats will not vote or even vote for Trump. A report said that some 30% of attendees at his recent rally in Grand Rapids Michigan are registered Democrats. They also have no policies because Trump usurped their traditional sectors of American society and their issues.

AOC is one of hundreds of thousands of people with web sites on which they regularly post commentaries. Her comments are not extraordinary or outside of the ordinary, whatever that is on the internet. The first thing that took her above the mob was an election to Congress, but that raises the same questions. What made her stand out above the large number of Democrats in her New York district? The level of ignorance in all aspects of politics, history, and economics was on display after her election. It was undoubtedly worse before she was elected, which makes the question of how she ran for office more pressing.

AOC introduced the Green New Deal (GND), but it is not new because it is a retread of the climate actions set out in Agenda 21. It is equally obvious that AOC had no part in its production and didn’t understand it. So, why is she talking about it and displaying her ignorance? Simple, she is a puppet of technocrats who want the issues on the front page because it is about using the environment as a global threat that they claim needs total government control. They know from polls that the public is not interested. They know Trump trumped all their traditional issues. Enter, AOC with shallowness and blind ambition which is so ignorant as not even to realize she is ignorant. The perfect dupe as one article reported.

More interestingly, the Democrats have shoved AOC out in front as the spokes-maven for all of their most ambitious and hare-brained socialist ideas. The latest is a so-called “Green New Deal.” The plan would have the US completely dependent on non-fossil fuel by the year 2030.

 

These people know that in the age of political correctness that they created it is very difficult to challenge a woman from a minority presented as epitomizing the American dream. A woman whom the publicity said fought her way out of impossible situations and did it in the face of white male supremacy. AOC is the modern equivalent of Joan of Arc (1412-1431). Nobody ever asks why Joan, an 18-year-old woman, ended up in uniform fighting against the English. Joan was a pawn of the French King, Charles VII, who was losing to the English and wanted a negotiated peace without loss of status. He apparently used her as a person more likely to negotiate peace with the English than a man.

As we see with all these AOC type stories, people, but especially women, are picked out for a cynical political purpose. This exploitation was on full display during the Justice Kavanaugh debacle. They trotted on to the stage a steady stream of women to play a part like Joan, with what they genuinely believed was an important nation saving function. Now, only a year later, they are on the rubbish heap of history. It is unlikely they will receive the forgiveness of an inquiry, like Joan did, and achieve the honored position as a savior of their country. All they got was their Warhol 15 minutes of fame, which consisted of deer blinking in the headlights of cynicism.




Racism, Concentration Camps, Police State: Is China Set To Become The Fourth Reich?

China is a Technocracy but it is also totalitarian, and is exhibiting many of the characteristics of Hitler’s Third Reich: concentration camps, institutionalized racism. ubiquitous command and control, environmental rhetoric, etc. ⁃ TN Editor

More than a million people, for no reason other than their ethnicity or religion, are held in concentration camps in what Beijing calls the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Picture: Chinese police clash with ethnic Uighur women during a protest in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, on July 7, 2009. (Photo by Guang Niu/Getty Images)

More than a million people, for no reason other than their ethnicity or religion, are held in concentration camps in what Beijing calls the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and what traditional inhabitants of the area, the Uighurs, say is East Turkestan. In addition to Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs are also held in these facilities.

Families in this troubled area, shown on maps as the northwestern portion of the People’s Republic of China, are being torn apart. The children of imprisoned Uighur and Kazakh parents are “confined” to “schools” that are separated from the outside by barbed wire and heavy police patrols. They are denied instruction in their own language, forced to learn Mandarin Chinese. The controls are part of a so-called “Hanification” policy, a program of forced assimilation. “Han” is the name of China’s dominant ethnic group.

Because Uighurs and Kazakhs are dying in the camps in considerable numbers, Beijing is building crematoria to eradicate burial traditions while disposing of corpses.

The camps, a crime against humanity, are spreading. China is now building similar facilities, given various euphemistic names such as “vocational training centers,” in Tibet, in China’s southwest.

At the same time, Beijing is renewing its attempt to eliminate religion country-wide. Christians have come under even greater attack across China, as have Buddhists. China’s ruler, Xi Jinping, demands that the five recognized religions — official recognition is a control mechanism — “Sinicize.” The Chinese, as a part of this ruthless and relentless effort, are destroying mosques and churches, forcing devout Muslims to drink alcohol and eat pork, inserting Han officials to live in Muslim homes, and ending religious instruction for minors.

These attempts, which have antecedents in Chinese history, have been intensified since Xi became the Communist Party’s general secretary in November 2012.

At the same time, Xi, far more than his predecessors, has been promoting the concept of a world order ruled by only one sovereign, a Chinese one.

In broad outline, Xi’s vision of the world is remarkably similar to that of the Third Reich, at least before the mass murders.

The Third Reich and the People’s Republic share a virulent racism, in China politely referred to as “Han chauvinism.” The Han category, which is said to include about 92% of the population of the People’s Republic, is in truth the amalgamation of related ethnic groups.

Chinese mythology holds that all Chinese are descendants of the Yellow Emperor, who is thought to have ruled in the third millennium BCE. The Chinese consider themselves to be a branch of humanity separate from the rest of the world, a view reinforced by indoctrination in schools, among other means.

Chinese scholars support this notion of Chinese separateness with the “Peking Man” theory of evolution, which holds the Chinese do not share a common African ancestor with the remainder of humankind. This theory of the unique evolution of the Chinese has, not surprisingly, reinforced racist views.

As a result of racism, many in China, including officials, “believe themselves to be categorically different from and impliedly superior to the rest of the humankind,” writes Fei-Ling Wang, author of The China Order: Centralia, World Empire, and the Nature of Chinese Power.

The racism, therefore, is institutionalized and openly promoted. That was painfully evident last year in the 13-minute skit on China Central Television’s Spring Festival Gala, the premier television show in China. In “Let’s Celebrate Together,” a Chinese actress in blackface played a Kenyan mother, who had an enormous bosom and ridiculously large buttocks. Worse, her sidekick was a human-size monkey. The combination of the monkey and the woman was an echo of the Hubei Provincial Museum exhibit, “This is Africa,” which in 2017 displayed photographs of Africans flush next to images of primates.

In recent years, there have been many ugly portrayals of Africans in Chinese media, and although the skit last year was not the worst, it was striking because the main state broadcaster, by airing it to about 800 million viewers, made it clear Chinese officials think of Africans as both objects of derision and subhuman. In these circumstances, it is a safe assumption that these views are shared by the Beijing leadership, which, alarmingly, is making more frequent race-based appeals to Chinese people — and not only those in China.

Read full story here…




Tim Ball: How Too Many Lawyers Create Legal Chaos

Technocracy rolls on behind the scene while politicians are gridlocked in legislative and legal chaos, while selective deregulation turns over more power to Technocrats advancing Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

Voltaire said, If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” In this article, the required definitions are explained as follows.

Many people have heard laws and regulations being used in the same sentence. It is also assumed that they are related to each other in many ways. However, definitions of both the words often cause confusion between the two words making people believe that they are the same. These words are different from each other in distinct ways. Laws are rules that are enacted by a governing body, while regulation is the process of monitoring and enforcing the rules.

Donald Trump argues that his deregulations are freeing up and boosting the economy more than all the tax cuts he introduced. It is true, but just as people didn’t know how the addition of those regulations gradually strangled the economy, they are unaware of how they free it. His deregulation removed the “monitoring and enforcing,” but it did not remove the laws written by the enacting body, in this case, Congress.

Deregulation is rare as Trump pointed out. Removal of the laws that required the regulations is even rarer. It is almost impossible to imagine Congress agreeing even to consider removal of the laws that underpin the Trump deregulation examples. This means that throughout US history every law created to resolve an issue remains ‘on the books.’ Because of the legal practice of precedence, this means that an almost unlimited set of laws exist that any lawyer can use to argue a case.

The underlying point, experienced but rarely articulated, is that as soon as government becomes involved in an issue, it is a guarantee for no resolution of the issue. Worse, the resolution will become part of the larger growth of government, laws, and regulations that will eventually smother society. Continued growth of government is proof of my argument.

Because of this, you frequently hear people say, “There is too much government and too many laws.” Thirty minutes later you can hear the same person say about another issue, “Why doesn’t the government do something about this?” Many people claim that politicians don’t listen. What they mean is the politicians don’t seem to do what they want. The politicians do listen and respond but with knee-jerk, completely unnecessary reactions.

Every day new events occur that create a negative impact on at least one segment of society. Usually, there is an outcry and politicians feel obliged to respond. Today, the event and its implications for society, are amplified by the sensationalist media. The politicians respond by producing new legislation to deal with the event.

It is reasonable to assume that most new legislation or rules are not required. The Bible only needed ten rules. It is revealing to look at the original ten as set out in Exodus 20:2-17. There are only two (2) that are relevant in any society over time. 1. You shall not murder, and 2) You shall not steal. Of course, coveting thy neighbor’s wife works both ways and even other ways today.

Today there are so many laws that a lawyer can almost always find something to stretch and bend to overcome any charge. Sadly, it depends on whether you can afford a good lawyer and that in itself makes a mockery of the law and justice.

Lawyers are the largest professional group in politics.

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers. 

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.

Somehow this doesn’t prevent them piling law on law. A new circumstance arises that seems to get people upset. Most of the issues that persist over a few months gather political momentum. These include public and private meetings, the creation of concerned citizens, and corporate-funded lobby groups. Meanwhile, the politician’s setup research groups and ultimately hold public and private hearings. The media confuse the situation by selecting and amplifying specific issues.   There are few days when Congress is in session that you can’t tune to one committee or another holding hearings and special hearings. It is easy to argue that this is their job, but what it does is allow them to perpetuate their job.

In almost every case the conclusion is a recommendation for more legislation, and that means more laws. Trump recommended that politicians eliminate two old regulations for every new regulation. It is an excellent first step, and initially, it is working better than expectations. However, that won’t continue, no matter the benefit to society. At some point, the bureaucrats and lawyers and lawyer/politicians will stop the bleeding because, ultimately, they are in control and will not allow elimination of their positions and power. Undoubtedly, they will use the vast array of laws on the books to make their case.

But this underscores the problem that laws, and the accompanying regulations are self-perpetuating. When a regulation is eliminated the laws stay on the books. It is like erasing a software program. When installed it places controls throughout your computer that remain unless specifically and individually removed, even if you erase the basic program.

The debris accumulates and eventually clogs the system. The laws accumulate in the same way, except that lawyers dig through them, and that is much easier now with computers until they find all or part of one that is close enough to their argument. Almost always this is not related in any way to the original intent of the law. That is why Justice Kavanaugh spoke about how he decides a case – he looks at the Constitution, then Precedent. He only looks at the intent if it is not clear. Is he saying that in every law or portion of the law, and it is always that, lawyers know the intent? Talented as they are, that is not credible.

It is time for a legislative spring cleaning. They should eliminate all deregulated laws. Do not allow any new law that did not get full vetting of overlap with existing law. Gradually eliminate all laws not challenged before the Supreme Court. This could begin by eliminating all other laws over 100 years old and to continue removal until all unnecessary laws are gone.

This will work because it is working in almost every other country in the world. It is not working in America, not just because of the complexity but the prohibitive cost. It alone explains but doesn’t justify why America has more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world – one lawyer per 265 Americans. It is a growth industry that guaranteed its continued existence by saying that America is a nation of laws. Yes, it is because they made it that way.

However, it is not a nation of justice because they made a system so complex and arcane that they retain complete control. Legal technocrats with total control because they defined and created the system, control the society by pretending to deal with social and economic issues when they are actually self-perpetuating. They are the only ones that can afford the law. They use the people’s money to pursue and prosecute those people. They can stretch out and delay at will until justice is denied to the people. It is why British Prime Minister William Gladstone said, justice delayed is justice denied.

It is also why Charles Dickens wrote Bleak House in which families are involved in legal disputes through a legal company called Jarndyce and Jarndyce.: The legal issues are resolved by the end of the book, but everybody involved is dead.




The Merging Of Government With Artificial Intelligence

Technocrats are directly encroaching upon government functions. A Federal Data Strategy for AI was created in 2018 providing standards across the entire Federal government on the use of Artificial Intelligence. ⁃ TN Editor

Private businesses already use AI to find efficiencies in their own business and improve the return-on-investment of products and projects.

At the risk of dating myself, one of my favorite movies growing up as a kid was “WarGames” starring Matthew Broderick. I didn’t realize it at the time, but in the climactic scene, the large supercomputer ‘WOPR’ operated by the Defense Department, showed artificial intelligence capabilities. By playing tic-tac-toe against itself, it learned a lesson that prevented global thermonuclear war.

In many ways, Hollywood has warped what many think of when they first hear the term artificial intelligence, or AI. My thoughts used to go to movies like “The Terminator” or “The Matrix” where sentient machines develop the ability to think for themselves and try to overthrow humankind. While this makes for an exciting movie plot, AI has much more tangible—and less threatening—benefits, particularly for government.

In 2018, U.S. Chief Information Officer Suzette Kent announced the creation of the first Federal Data Strategy that will serve as a foundation for how agencies use AI.

Her analogy in describing the need for the strategy was compelling.

“Technology modernization allows us the opportunity to rethink our foundation,” Kent saidat an event announcing the strategy. “We have to move aggressively. We don’t want to build the high-speed train without the track.”

AI can serve as part of that track. As the government collects more and more data, the need for solutions to drive true value from that data grows in importance. AI, in conjunction with big data and analytics, can deliver that baseline value and go beyond traditional solutions to find deeper insights.

Other governments have recognized this as well. For example, the United Arab Emirates was the first nation to appoint a senior cabinet official solely focused on AI empowerment and oversight within the government, appointing a Minister of State for Artificial Intelligencein October 2017. Canada was the first nation to release a national AI strategy. And China has released a 3-year plan to be a leader … if not the leader … in AI.

Understanding AI

So, for those of us whose understanding of AI has heretofore been solely that of the Hollywood blockbuster, AI is the science of training systems to emulate specific human tasks through learning and automation. In short, it’s a technology that makes it possible for machines to learn from experience, adjust to new inputs and perform specific human tasks, such as pattern recognition, finding anomalies in data, image and video analytics, and more. Specific to analytics, AI can help analytics programs in government find connections and trends in the data that human analysts might miss due to scale, complexity, or other factors … and it can do it at a much faster speed. AI can find context in data, gaining insight from previous discoveries to create better outcomes in the future. From an analytics perspective, AI tends to focus in these areas:

  • Machine learning: Machine learning and deep learning find insights hidden in data without explicitly being told where to look or what to conclude. This results in better, faster and more accurate decision-making capabilities.
  • Natural Language Processing: NLP enables understanding, interaction and communication between humans and machines, automatically extracting insights and emerging trends from large amounts of structured and unstructured content.
  • Computer vision: Computer vision analyzes and interprets what’s in an image or video through image processing, image recognition and object detection.
  • Forecasting and optimization: Forecasting helps predict future outcomes, while optimization delivers the best results given resource constraints. This includes enabling large-scale automation for predicting outcomes and optimizing decisions.

Read full story here…




Dr. Tim Ball: Tyranny Of The Technocrat Minority

Technocrats generally don’t believe in voting at all, but rather following the ‘rule of science’ where the last word (final vote) is based on their scientific declarations. Thus, if they declare it, it must be correct… and all else is swept away ⁃ TN Editor

Thank goodness the technocrats are usually in the minority. However, because of this, they constantly work to counteract and overcome this limitation. They do this in many ways, but one of the most effective is to undermine the decree at the heart of democracy that a majority is 50 +1. They convinced people that this resulted in a tyranny of the majority. They replaced it with the current situation that we now realize is a bigger disaster, the tyranny of the minority.

Consider the current situation in the US Senate where the Republicans have a majority with 53 seats to the Democrats 47. Under any fair democratic system that is a majority, but the technocrats forced through a requirement that requires 60 votes for approval on most issues. The argument was that these are so serious that a significant majority must approve. It sounds very reasonable, especially with something of great consequence, but all it does is give power and control to the minority.

I was President of a condominium or Strata that involved 96 private owners. Most issues only required a 50%+1 approval at the Annual General Meetings but any vote involving the expenditure of money required 75% approval. Again, it sounds reasonable adding a further control on careless or wasteful spending. What it did was put control of all expenditures in the hands of 25% of the owners. In most groups, it is always possible to find 25% who will not spend any money if they can. It meant that necessary structural repairs to our property were constantly defeated. It ended up in court where the judge appointed an administrator and effectively took all power away from the Council.

In a rewrite of the legislation governing Stratas, the politicians (technocrats) changed it but didn’t really change it. The 75% was still required, but after several attempts to get that vote, the Strata could go to the court for an adjudicated dispensation.

The level of political game playing with the Senate vote only underscores the problem with a 60% vote. It means that 40% can dictate to the 60% and that is undemocratic and constitutes the tyranny of the minority. Because the Democrats changed the list of what issues required a 60% vote to include Supreme Court Justices they approved, the Republicans were able to appoint Justice Bret Kavanaugh. Now the Republicans are confronted with another 60% vote. It is unlikely they can get it changed because of the tyranny of the minority. Besides, technocrats, including Republicans, warn them off by saying you might want to block something with a 60% vote in the future. This is what is wrong with politics today. They take an apparently reasonable idea and pervert it to achieve control. It is a reason for the growing public anger with politics that they justify a position by saying we will act stupidly because they acted stupidly.

Democracy is the rule of the majority and must be 50 + 1. It is an absolute, like free speech. Either you have it, or you don’t. The minute there is anything else a minority take control to decide which words are allowed. So it is, that if you move away from 50+1. This does not guarantee the rights of minorities, and that is the challenge. It is why Churchill made his famous comment in 1947,

 “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The Founding Fathers confronted the problem of democracy and created a republic in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As one author explained,

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

All that is under attack as a small group of technocrats attempt to bypass the rule of the majority.




Man-Caused Perversion Of Ideas Is As Old As The Hills

Even when good ideas are presented, invariably someone appears to use them for their own self-aggrandizement, leaving the original intent and potential benefits behind. Only by constant vigilance can an idea stay true to its origin. ⁃ TN Editor

The midterm election is the most important since the creation of the US. There is a choice between successful or failed economic policies. Yes, it is that, but it is more profound because of what happens to ideas after implementation. The battle is the classic one seen throughout history between an idea, such as the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and the vain self-promoters who pervert the idea through control.

Everything starts with an idea, whether it is a new widget, a religion, or a country. Every year millions of ideas appear, but few ever develop into anything. The people select the ones that do if it fits their needs, satisfies their interests or improves their lives. A new phase must begin after the idea is accepted if it is to achieve wider success. An organization is necessary that takes the idea and spreads it to the world.

A classic example is the idea of Christianity. It wasn’t long before disciples appeared and travelled widely preaching the gospel and putting the idea in a written form that became the New Testament. Some of those ideas were leveraged into the creation of the Catholic Church.

 “The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches.”

Some disagree with this version. It doesn’t matter. What is important is that they created a structure called the Catholic Church with a human being in charge. This structure gradually grew, creating rules and positions inconsistent with the original idea of Christianity. It rapidly changed to ensure its existence and control. The self-promoting narcissists were in charge. The structure they created was rigid, but the world and society are dynamic and ever-changing. It eventually becomes so misaligned that it collapses taking the society down with it. Alternatively, the people revolt.

The drift of the Catholic Church was already evident with such things as the split in the Great Western Schism when two popes were elected, one in Avignon, France and the other in Rome. The division became so apparent that by 1517 Martin Luther (1483-1546) was driven to nail a list of the transgression to the Wittenberg Cathedral door.  The structure always becomes more important than the idea, unless a system is designed to prevent it.

The only serious attempt in history to do that was with the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights created by the Founding Fathers. The original idea was for a Republic with government at all levels elected and accountable to the people. We have direct insight into the thoughts behind their creation known as the Federalist Papers.

You can understand their importance when you recall the real issue in the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. When asked what he considered when making a judgment, he replied, the law as written, and precedence, that is previous judgments that stood the test of time. They then asked if he ever considered the reasoning behind the law; that is, what the legislators were thinking or what was their intent. He replied that most judges do that only helps to clear up ambiguity.

America is at the point where it must refer to the Federalist Papers. There is very little ambiguity in the Constitution, primarily because the Founding Fathers created a system of amendments to overcome rigidity. Amendments are deliberately and correctly difficult to obtain. The need to revisit the Constitution is made necessary by the creation of a rigid, unaccountable structure by the self-promoting elitists. The Founding Fathers tried to build in accountability by having more positions filled by elections than ever before, but there is an obvious limit to that idea, especially since the government has grown exponentially.

This is the critical issue at the heart of the battle between Trump and both other branches of the tripartite system. Today’s bureaucrats are mostly technocrats who control everything including their budgets, the size of their organization and the parameters of their responsibility. Here is a small example of the exploitation of such a system that I witnessed. A Captain was appointed the head of the motor pool on my base. He immediately asked for 25 more people because of work demands. The uninformed politicians agreed but said he could only have 12. That was precisely what he wanted because it increased the pool to a size that the rules required a Major in charge. As soon as he got the ruling, he applied for promotion.

The Founding Fathers considered the importance of numbers, only to reduce concentration of power. For example, they considered appointing two Presidents. Here are other salient quotes from the Founding Fathers that speak to the challenge in the US today. Most speak to power and its control.

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” –James Madison

“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” –James Madison

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams 

“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” –James Madison

 “If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.” –Alexander Hamilton

“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature.” –Alexander Hamilton

All of these concerns were accentuated and exploited by former President Barack Obama and continued by the radical left. The talent of the Founding Fathers centered on their unblinkered understanding of human nature. Benjamin Franklin demonstrated this ability when he described Barack Obama 300 years ago.

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

Thomas Jefferson described Obama’s drop of reason.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Will the unique idea of America survive the attacks and deliberate undermining, now so deeply entrenched by technocrats? They dragged the nation away from the original idea. Now, the people must know the original idea and intent. There is a glimmer of hope in the survival of the idea of Christianity: Despite the destructive actions of the Catholic Church, Christianity survives, protected from the meddling of man, in the heart and soul of the individual. The idea of the US is also there in the American people as Trump showed, which is why the narcissistic left is so blinded by hate.




Udi Greenberg: ‘The Obama Administration Was Defined By Technocracy’

This is a portion of an interview in Spiked Review. Again, Technocracy is front and center as the dominant theme in progressive and left-wing memes. Although there are similarities, it is Technocracy, not Fascism. Technocracy will continue to rise in public discussion. ⁃ TN Editor

This does not mean to say that everyone who invokes the Weimar or Nazi analogy immediately ends up an anti-democrat, but Professor Bessner and me worry that we could eventually end up in a similar place. We are both scholars of the Cold War, and we both studied how political theorists in the 1940s and 1950s claimed that in order to achieve stable democracy you need to limit political activism and people’s involvement in politics. And we were worried that the same logic might lead us in the same direction today.

In our view, the right, progressive response to the contemporary moment should be a doubling down in our commitment to democracy, limiting technocracy and increasing democratic and grassroots involvement in politics.

review: Yet it does seem that the predominant response to the populist moment, certainly in left-wing and liberal circles in both the US and the UK, has been to make a stronger appeal to technocracy, to a rule by expertise.

Greenberg: That is true for some, certainly. It has actually been developing since at least the 1990s, with the so-called left moving more and more in the direction of technocracy, and trying to achieve progress through technocracy, rather than through more popular control of the economy. And I think that is born of a deep disappointment with the masses, and a belief that the masses cannot be trusted to make the right economic decisions. And that tendency developed and deepened right through to the Obama administration, which was very much defined by technocracy.

The reason this recent development on the left stood out for us was that too many on the left today make the same argument as the militant democrats – both contend that technocracy is the best means to preserve democracy. So, if the masses are not to be trusted, then you have to transfer as much power as possible into the hands of technocrats, who know what’s good for the masses, who will make the right call. And you have to shield technocrats from democratic accountability precisely to make those calls.

We have seen this logic operating in the past two decades among centrist politicians, and political elites more generally. And we were worried that the rise of populism on the right will further exacerbate and intensify this technocratic way of thinking. We believe that the left should adopt a very different model of thinking. In some ways, we believe that the logic of militant democracy and technocracy is precisely what led us to where we are now.

Read full story here…