In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC", Part 12

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited May 2002 in General Discussion
"THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC", Part Twelve
by Sherman H. Skolnick 5/16/02

BIG NOISE OR BIG TRUTH?
Old-timers remember. Bad times have a positive good. They cause the real stuff to come out. Why? Well, a simple reason is that people in key managerial positions get laid off in a bad recession or full blown Depression. And if they cannot find good work, or any work suitable to their talent. Well, what more do they have to lose? They start talking. They put details into the ears of loudmouths. And so the common Americans find out what is really happening. The 1930s were such a period. So you do not know that. Well, maybe you forgot to talk to your elders.

Is now such a period? Details are beginning to circulate in higher and higher circles of the monopoly press. The liars and whores of the press are forced to deal with the growing understanding that there was prior knowledge, at the highest level, as to Black Tuesday. Maybe George W. Bush himself did not know all the details. But did Daddy Bush know? Some think so.

A fictional book (by Richard Condon) and movie was entitled "Winter Kills". When it first came out as a movie, it was quickly withdrawn and suppressed. It was about an Irish patriarch who arranged with a criminal cabal to have his son as the President. Because of the conflicting forces at work, his son was assassinated, caused by his father. After all, the family boss was in with some really bad people.

The book and movie seemed to point in real life to John F. Kennedy and his gangster-CIA linked father, Joseph P. Kennedy. In the beginning, the Kennedy Family blocked the further presentation of the movie. Years later, it did finally get shown on television. We interviewed, on tape, the movie producer. He told us how the Kennedys set out to destroy him and his film production. We played a few minutes of the interview on our recorded phone message. At that time, it was the only outlet available to us and our reports. That was before public access Cable TV, before Internet, and before more open talk radio.

Now the monopoly press is laying off people. Their source of income, advertising, is way down. So stories are beginning to circulate, in and out of the mass media, even by the press fakers. Did not George W. Bush order the military stand-down on September 11, 2001? Or, was it Daddy Bush, former head of the secret political police?

Popular websites, like www.rense.com, are putting the terrible truth of high-level prior knowledge of Black Tuesday right on the screen, right into the face of millions of Americans (some of whom may have been previously naive or poorly informed). So now, with Jeff Rense doing his best to educate everyone, there is no reason not to be well-informed. And those devils in high places, wrapping themselves in the flag, will not make it all go away. As we have pointed out in prior website stories, there is a split in the American aristocracy. Part supports (for the moment) George W. Bush, the occupant and resident of the White House. The other candidate Albert Gore, Jr., some consider as the actually elected but NOT INAUGURATED President, having won the popular vote by 600,000. Some contend that a corrupt "Gang of Five" on the U.S. Supreme Court installed Bush. In Texas, they call Bush by his middle initial, said quickly, as "DUBYA". His illegitimacy haunts even those who call themselves independent.

The opposing faction in the aristoracy, Establishment, Ruling Class, whatever you call them----to put it, crudely, do NOT want to be forced to deal with him the way they dealt with President John F. Kennedy. Accused (falsely) by them of being soft on "Communists" and "in" with the Moscow government, JFK was the victim of a public execution by the ultra rich, right after high noon his brains being blown out in an open car, by military-style triangulating sniper fire. News fakers, key players in the "lone assassin" cover up story, were thereafter rewarded by being pushed right to the top of the monopoly press. [Examples of that, naming names, are in our website story, "Liars and Whores of the Press".]

To temporarily sidestep some of the problems, the Federal Reserve has been secretly (or not so secretly for some) pumping up the stock market. Used, in part, have been billions and billions of dollars siphoned off (some call it embezzled) of Enron and multiplied through book-keeping hocus-pocus and derivatives, to create, on paper, trillions of dollars. [Study all the parts of our website series, "Enron Black Magic".]

Because of economic dislocations, lay-offs, pocket-book worries, many Americans may be inclined to sweep the Democrats into a majority in the House and moreso in the Senate. [Because of antiquated State Laws and due to a "don't give a damned" attitude of the U.S. Supreme Court, third parties in America are not given a good chance in elections. The monopoly press, in an unwritten policy, ignores third party efforts. In Europe, to their credit, without such hang-ups, third and fourth party persons sit in their Parliaments and have a fair chance at the instruments of Government.]

Sensing all this, the GOP makers and shakers are in favor of somehow, if possible, removing their own man, George W. Bush, and maybe Richard Cheney also, from the chair if not the spotlight. Could a land invasion by the U.S. of Iraq stop the U.S. Elections? [Saddam Hussein was in the 1980s a private business partner of Daddy Bush. See our website story, "The Secrets of Timothy McVeigh". And Osama bin Laden has been a business partner of George W. Bush as we have pointed out.]

The Republicans, as a front for a part of the aristocracy, fear a Democrat Congressional majority may find reasons to consider impeachment resolutions against George W. Bush.

Some supposedly "well-educated" persons often do not seem to understand any of this. What did they learn in University after all, at great expense to their elders? In bad economic times, can they truly expect to make PER YEAR in wages what it costs PER YEAR to go to a fancy private college or university? Some such university graduates in not comprehending any of this, would require that we re-invent the wheel of history for their quick benefit. I notice in reading some of the letters and e-mail, from apparent college-types, they spell coup as KOO, and spell the term "martial law" like describing a federal law man.

In 1999, I began to describe on radio talk shows and elsewhere, that the then upcoming year 2000 Presidential Election may not be conducted in a manner that we as ordinary Americans are accustomed to from past history. If necessary, was the monopoly press fully prepared to explain it away, if we had elections CANCELLED? In 1972, was a study made by a think tank, part of the American CIA and the Military, the Rand Corp. Their opus, "Project Star", instigated by a would-be dictator, President Richard M. Nixon, laid out ways the press can persuade ordinary Americans to accept terminating elections and instituting martial law.

Have we all forgotten how close to martial law we came in the fall of 1973, when Nixon tried by extra-legal means to stop the Watergate investigations? [It was called "The Saturday Night Massacre" when he summarily axed the investigators.] In 1974, the aristocracy, having used Nixon enough as their punching bag, through their high court stooges in Washington, slapped down Nixon. A week before Nixon's telecast tearful resignation in August, 1974, General Alexander Haig, then White House Chief of Staff, took away from President and Commander-in-Chief Nixon, the "football", the term for the nuclear trigger code box that a Marine carries around while always right near the President.

And when the aristocracy through various snipers, in 1981, warned newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan that they were aware of the "October Surprise" treason by which he was installed, General Alexander Haig came up from the White House situation room and proclaimed haughtily, "I'm in charge here!" In a national emergency, Haig, under martial law directives, would be correct. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, because Reagan was lazy, more or less ran the White House until Bush was himself elected President in 1988. Some contend Daddy Bush, in violation of the U.S. Constitution 22nd Amendment, actually served three terms as President. The attempt to warn or assassinate Reagan was falsely blamed on a "lone nut". John Hinckley whose family while failing in the oil business, was bailed out by Daddy Bush.

And several weeks after this situation, there was an attempt by the American CIA (falsely blamed on the Bulgarians) to assassinate, in a related move, Pope John Paul 2nd. (His predecessor, Pope John Paul 1st, was murdered by being poisoned 33 days after becoming Pope. Details are in the book, "In God's Name", by David Yallop. Among other things, the pontiff wanted to stop the CIA and the gangsters from encroaching on the Continental Bank of Chicago, owned in part by the Vatican and the Queen of England. Now taken over by the Jesuits/French Rothschilds jointly with the Japanese underworld, the Yakuza, it is called a unit of Bank of America Chicago. Among other things, their specialty is judicial bribery funds offshore.] So, in the apparent plan by the GOP to remove their own man, George W. Bush, will it be just a big noise or the Big Truth?

More coming. Stay tuned




http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ootar12.html



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    A Republic or an Empire
    by Jacob G. Hornberger, May 2002


    The "Week in Review" section of the March 31 issue of the New York Times published an article containing a startling observation-that "today, America is no mere superpower or hegemon but a full-blown empire in the Roman and British sense." The article, "All Roads Lead to D.C.," by Emily Eakin, which included a picture of ancient Rome from a scene in the movie Gladiator, pointed out that many Americans, most notably conservatives, are now openly stating that the achievement of empire status is not something that Americans should bemoan but rather something we should be celebrating.

    But is it?

    First consider how differently our American ancestors viewed the concept of liberty and the legitimate functions of government. In 1890, for example, there was little or no income tax, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, welfare, economic regulations, gun control, or immigration controls. People were free to enter into mutually beneficial transactions with people all over the world, accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth, and decide what to do with it. That's what it once meant to be an American. That's what it once meant to be free.

    Not anymore. Today, Americans define freedom by the power of government to take care of them with the taxes imposed on them. That's why there are today thousands of government departments and agencies whose mission is to provide care and sustenance to the citizenry. It's also why Washington, D.C., with all its magnificent buildings, reminds some people of Imperial Rome.

    It might surprise you to know that the Roman Empire had a paternalistic welfare state too. To keep the people content and distracted in the midst of ever-increasing taxes and faraway wars, empire officials provided the citizenry with what became known as "bread and circuses."

    With respect to foreign affairs, for more than a century after the nation's founding Americans followed the counsel of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson: Stay out of entangling alliances and foreign wars.

    Today, the situation is exactly the opposite, which is what the New York Times article points out. America has become a vast empire whose control and domination is far more extensive than any other empire in history.

    How does the empire maintain its control and domination thousands of miles away from its center in Washington? By permitting foreign rulers to stay in power in their respective countries, but only so long as they remain subservient to the empire. That subservience is maintained through the payment of large sums of money (foreign aid), threats of ouster (coups), or, in extreme cases of resistance, invasion or bombing by empire forces.

    Just as with the Roman Empire, there is always some crisis somewhere, which inevitably is used as the excuse for raising taxes and reducing liberties. And then there's always someone somewhere who is resisting the empire. Consider, for example, Saddam Hussein, the recalcitrant ruler of Iraq. He's actually an empire's greatest asset because he can be so easily employed to raise the citizenry to crisis mode and fever pitch whenever necessary. Yet how many Americans know that Saddam Hussein used to be an ally of the empire when it was helping him wage war against Iran?

    Consider also the recent coup attempt in Venezuela against its democratically elected president, Fernando Chavez. Ever since his election, Chavez has been a mortal enemy of the empire, but not because he's a socialist or an authoritarian, as empire officials suggest. After all, the empire befriends many socialist and authoritarian rulers, most recently the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, an army general who took control of that nation in a coup and who, with the implicit support of empire officials, refuses to call for democratic elections.

    The real reason that U.S. officials don't like Chavez and why they implicitly endorsed (and possibly supported) the military coup against him is that Chavez has refused to serve and obey the empire, even going so far as to befriend such mortal enemies of the empire as Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein.

    Conservatives like to point out how the United States defeated the Soviet Empire by making it tax and spend so heavily that the entire system ultimately collapsed from within on the impoverished and dispirited Soviet people. That's also why the Roman Empire ultimately fell to the barbarian invaders. But that can't happen to the American Empire. Right?
    http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205f.asp

    Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Virginia, which recently published Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State by Sheldon Richman.






    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • Bushy ARBushy AR Member Posts: 564 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If being a submissive part of an "Empire" is what being an American these days,then I am proud to be a part of it.I had not thought of it that way either,but it makes sense.If that is what it takes to have freedoms that other systems do not,count me in.Imperfect as it is,this is still the best country on earth.I have visited several others,some when wearing a uniform,and I have yet to find anything better.

    Only the strong survive...well maybe also some weak ones with lots of ammo!
  • thesoundguy1thesoundguy1 Member Posts: 680
    edited November -1
    And like Rome,this to will crumble under it's own weight and corruption.
Sign In or Register to comment.