The American Ruling Class

[5150]

I find myself one of the very few people who do not hold the soldiers of the US military in high regard, as a matter of fact I have always looked down on them as being stupid fools who bought into lies and propaganda. I also feel the same way regarding all the "patriotic' people who also buy into supporting the troops without really understanding it all.

I cant tell you how many times I wanted to ***** slap the living ship out of some fat overweight woman or chest pounding vet who gets all worked up on how if not for the soldiers fighting and killing all those people around the world I wouldn't have the right to such free speech. I know even as hard as I want to hit these types the only result is I'll walk away with a hurt hand because they are too stupid to "get it" now so there's little hope of them ever "getting it".

I did find this article helpful in the fact it does at least expose the "programing" or "conditioning" of the entire military psych ops but still the majority of people still don't "get it" even when confronted with facts.

During timeouts at home games, the New York Jets air a Hometown Heroes segment in which a U.S. soldier or two are shown on the Jumbotron and everyone thanks them for their service. The soldiers and three friends get seats in the Coaches Club. It’s a nice salute.

It’s also funded by U.S. taxpayers.

In news that was first reported Tuesday by Herb Jackson of the Bergen Record and expanded upon by Christopher Baxter and Jonathan D. Salant of New Jersey Advance Media, the Department of Defense paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million from 2011 to 2014 for salutes like the Hometown Heroes segment and other advertising at professional football games. All but $100,000 of that money came from the National Guard.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) called the spending wasteful and disingenuous, Baxter and Salant report:

“Those of us go to sporting events and see them honoring the heroes,” Flake said in an interview. “You get a good feeling in your heart. Then to find out they’re doing it because they’re compensated for it, it leaves you underwhelmed. It seems a little unseemly.” …

National Guard paid millions to NFL teams for in-game soldier salutes

[5150]

Oh and before anyone gets all patriotic on me and starts to call me out on my disregard for the troops even if I disagree with the wars all I can say is I have a tattoo on my nut sack that says "lick here" and I'll be happy to show it to you

[aljhoa]

Oh and before anyone gets all patriotic on me

Supreme Court of Georgia.
PADELFORD, FAY & Co. plaintiffs in error
v.
THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY
OF SAVANNAH.
No. 64.
January Term, 1854.

No private person has a right to complain by suit in
court on the ground of a breach of the United States
constitution; for, though the constitution is a
compact, he is not a party to it.


Al

[5150]

Supreme Court of Georgia.
PADELFORD, FAY & Co. plaintiffs in error
v.
THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY
OF SAVANNAH.
No. 64.
January Term, 1854.

No private person has a right to complain by suit in
court on the ground of a breach of the United States
constitution; for, though the constitution is a
compact, he is not a party to it.


Al

No private person, but what about a citizen? Is it lost in the legal wording that a private person is out of such an ability due to the fact they are not submitting to said government as a citizen and therefore is the reason they are not a party of the compact?

Also remember the Constitution was written only for the members of government to be reminded of their limits because any individuals rights are unalienable. Therefore in reality the only people who can be held in such a suit are those who agree to such a compact; namely those who take an oath to defend and uphold the constitution such as the people elected to govern, and not the actual people themselves. This makes total sense when you understand the bigger picture of it all.

Be nice if you posted a more in depth explanation regarding the reason or thoughts behind your posts rather than just doing a drive by post without any mention to its relevance to the topic.

[wayne.ct]

I reserve my rights to me

I like the way this conversation is going. he he. The constitution was (and hopefully still is) an agreement between the (now 50) states to limit the federal government, all rights not enumerated being reserved to the states and the sovereign people. Thus we see a recognition of the rights of the sovereign people who give their CONSENT to be governed according to the rules of law. Only know how to give and withhold consent and you may retain your sovereign rights. If you don't know you can do this, how to do this and are willing to learn when, how and where to do this, then you get what you deserve, i.e. slavery. Look around you and you will see most people are slaves. Sad, very sad.

[rickoff]

Regarding Padelford, Fay & Company case......


Constitutional Law, which revolves around cases and case decisions involving constitutional issues such as individual rights, State rights, and explicitly enumerated government rights and prohibitions, has always been recorded in text format to show the most recently cited cases involving federal and state decisions in these matters. The case of Padelford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 14 Georgia 438 - (1854) was once included in these constitutional case citations under the following title:

92 Constitutional Law
92VI Enforcement of Constitutional Provisions
92VI(A) Persons Entitled to Raise Constitutional Questions; Standing

92VI(A)1 In General92k665 k. In General. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 92k42(2))No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it."

In actuality, the above quote was stated by Judge Benning, who, as one of 3 judges hearing the case, offered the above as his sole opinion. As you can see, the above focuses on the question of one's standing to raise a constitutional question. What you would find nowadays in this section of Constitutional Law is the following:

"Standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute
requires that the plaintiff must have suffered
some actual or threatened injury under the statute
and that he contend that the statute unconstitutionally
restricts his own rights."

Several cases which uphold the constitutional rights of individuals, which in actuality are prohibitions against government usurpation of powers not specifically granted under the Constitution, are found below and are in stark contrast to the Padelford, Fay & Co. opinion of Judge Benning:

Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)
"It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis."

Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of the Constitution."

Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied."

Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)
Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress cannot exercise power which they [the People] have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld."

Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1
"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)
"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship."

Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."

Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".

While these cases are definitely at odds with Judge Benning's 1854 statement, there is definitely some truth to what Benning said, and this is stated very convincingly in a paper about the Constitution titled "The Constitution of No Authority" that was written by Lysander Spooner in 1869. Here's a powerful excerpt from that essay:

"All political power, as it is called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government" (pretended); because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with pretended "government," as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money. So these villains, who call themselves "governments," well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their "authority" or "jurisdiction" (pretended) are denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money. For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: (a) That every man who puts money into the hands of terrocrats (who masquerade as "government"), puts into their hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection of their arbitrary will.
(b) That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resists their demands in the future.
(c) That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his money without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it.
(d) If a man wants protection, he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.
(e) That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.
(f) That no criminals (whether they call themselves "government" or not), can be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, for as long as they depend on extortion, rather than voluntary support.
These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that anyone will voluntarily pay money to the terrocrats who masquerade as "the government," for the purpose of securing their protection, unless he first makes an explicit and purely voluntary contract with them for that purpose.
It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the pretended "constitution." Consequently we have no evidence at all that the supposed "constitution" is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it."


I love Spooner's use of the word "Terrocrats" to describe those in government positions of power, as well as his containment of the word "government" in quotation marks - which is something I have frequently done myself to point out the fact that the defacto "government" currently acting as our supposed servants is not a legitimate government at all. The words that Spooner wrote in 1869 were most likely written in rebuke of the totalitarian principles that came into play before, during, and after the Civil War. Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, had been adopted in 1868, and had intentionally defined a new class of citizenship for the purpose of enslaving all Americans. The Reconstruction Act legislations by Congress, following the Civil War, were obviously unlawful and unconstitutional in nature, and President Andrew Johnson made it very clear that this was why he vetoed the 1867 Act, saying, "An act of Congress is proposed which, if carried out, would deny a trial by the lawful courts and juries to 9,000,000 American citizens and to their posterity for an indefinite period. It seems to be scarcely possible that anyone should seriously believe this consistent with a Constitution which declares in simple, plain, and unambiguous language that all persons shall have that right and that no person shall ever in any case be deprived of it. The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at the pleasure of a military commander." Note that congress overwhelmingly overrode Johnson's veto, and that their despicable, tyrannical, and unconstitutional plans were put into action and remain in action even today. Thus, Spooner's harsh definitions of those in "government" as scoundrels, villains, and terrocrats, is right on the mark and just as applicable today as it was in 1869. Spooner was correct in stating that the Constitution should not bind any individual who has not consented to be bound by it, and that inferred consent or implied consent does not constitute a legally binding contract. The "government" used the 14th Amendment to create US citizens, and uses trickery to force the People to sign statements on tax documents, Social Security applications, driver license applications, visa applications, and other applications, unwittingly acknowledging and claiming that they are such citizens. Citizens have certain "civil rights" which the "government" gives them, and which can thus also be taken away by their "government," while those who refuse to be classified as 14th Amendment citizens and instead maintain that they are American Nationals (a.k.a. Freemen) are free to exercise their natural unalienable rights. Those who fail to exercise these rights are living in voluntary servitude as slaves of their "government" rather than taking their rightful place as its masters.

[5150]

Rick,

That's a nice long post with all sorts of case law listed to back up your argument but the reality is real simple, the courts, the government and the LEOs dont give a flying Fuk about our collective "rights".

You have already concurred with me that even after me getting out of jail and having a felony conviction it should not prevent me from owning or possessing a gun due to it violating my god given rights, yet the Supreme court has ruled differently. Therefore all the arguing in the world or quoting case law wont "restore" my rights which were stripped and abridged. The sad thing is if it can happen to even one individual like me it can then happen to anyone like you and most people simply miss this reality.

When rights are stripped and people like me are illegally "legally" prevented from having or exercising their god given rights then it comes a time where one needs to stand up and fight.

One of the things happening now is cops are getting shot at left and right .. and they (LOEs) are afraid for their lives, and rightfully so. Karma is a bitcch and its their time to pay. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever and the more of these crooked thugs that have to fall, the better off this country will be.

/rant

[rickoff]

Rick,

That's a nice long post with all sorts of case law listed to back up your argument but the reality is real simple, the courts, the government and the LEOs dont give a flying F*** about our collective "rights".

The post you are referring to was not intended as an argument. It was a statement of inarguable fact, as well as a presentment of two schools of thought: one being that the Constitution is where our rights come from, and the other (as stated later in the post, by Lysander Spooner) that the Constitution has nothing to do with our rights. My guess is that you noticed the long list of mostly SCOTUS cases which are at odds with the Padelford, Fay & Co. decision which had been quoted, and assumed that this was an argument rebutting what Judge Benning had stated, but that's not the case. I'm also guessing that you didn't read to the end of the post, as I pointed out that what judge Benning had stated did have a basis in fact which is much more adequately and soundly put forth in reason and logic by Lysander Spooner, a legal scholar and champion of individualism. I'd encourage you to go back and read the entire post.

Actually it is individual rights, not "collective rights," as you mention, that are under attack by these "government," judicial, and LEO criminals, and that's why your individual, natural rights are not being honored. To understand the basic difference between individualism and collectivism, I'd suggest watching this video , and for a more complete understanding of how a collectivist conspiracy has taken control of America, watch this documentary by G Edward Griffin.

Best regards,

Rick

[5150]

Again my bad and this time in the choice of words I chose. I didn't mean argument and in "argument" but rather your side of the debate or in this regard your response in the thread where you're answering or responding to the subject matter that is currently being discussed.

now regarding your response to me, my point is that its all semantics because even with all the case law or evidence that the government is violating our rights regardless if they are natural, constitutional, or civil rights there fact is they are going to continue abusing and violating all our various rights simply because they have become too powerful to stop and simply don't care.

so when they are dragging people away in handcuffs who are quoting these case laws or any other "fact: it will fall on deaf ears. Trust me I have been through they system enough to know this first hand.

just keep paying your slave wages...urr taxes and keep quiet and don't rock the boat and you'll be alright... for now that is, until Uncle Sam demands more

[Ernst]

just keep paying your slave wages...urr taxes and keep quiet and don't rock the boat and you'll be alright... for now that is, until Uncle Sam demands more

That's right!
Be a good slave!
Be the frog that gets boiled by the slowly raising temperature of the water.


The only thing that is absolutely certain in life is that you will die.
The only choice you have is to die meaningless or to make a change.
(I feel my punk-rock years coming back to me )

Ernst.

[rickoff]

Again my bad and this time in the choice of words I chose. I didn't mean argument and in "argument" but rather your side of the debate or in this regard your response in the thread where you're answering or responding to the subject matter that is currently being discussed.

As you can see, from going back to read my entire post, if it is perceived that I favored either of the viewpoints being shown, which boils down to whether we have constitutional rights (rights granted by the Constitution, a.k.a. civil rights), or natural unalienable rights (which can neither be granted by government, taken away by government, or given away by the People), the perception that I favor the latter viewpoint would be the correct one. Setting aside, for a moment, whether the Constitution can be considered a contract binding upon anyone, let's simply examine whether or not the so-called "Bill of Rights" (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) grants certain rights, or whether it simply recognizes and reaffirms that those rights already exist and are inviolable. In reading these ten Amendments, one can see the word "right" or "rights," appears several times, and most likely this is why these proposed Amendments, though not including a title of Bill of Rights, later became known as the "Bill of Rights."

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice, in these Amendments, that there is no suggestion that the rights mentioned are being bestowed upon the People by the "government" which the People were creating. Amendment VII, in fact, makes it very clear that the right being mentioned therein (the right to a trial by jury) already existed, by saying that this right "shall be preserved." Likewise, a close examination of the other Amendments reveals that whenever a "right" is mentioned, it is simply a recognition, or affirmation, that the right exists, and the language of each Amendment is clearly stating that the "government" may not abuse or take away any of these existing rights. The only "rights" which were granted to "government" are stated in Amendment IX to be only those which are enumerated in the Constitution, and which cannot be used by that "government" to "deny or disparage others retained by the people." How much clearer can that possibly be? The People couldn't retain rights unless they already had those rights to begin with. Furthermore, the Preamble to the proposed Amendments made it very clear that the reason for including these Amendments was to prevent the created government from misconstruing or abusing their limited powers, saying, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

So there should be no question whether the Constitution is where our rights are derived from. Every right mentioned therein, which applied to the People, was simply a right that already existed and which "government" was prohibited from altering or interfering with. So where then did those People's rights come from? Under Common Law, those rights were recognized in the Magna Charta of 1215 A.D., and reaffirmed several times since then. In fact, the so-called "Bill of Rights" is pretty much simply a restatement of the Magna Charta. And the obvious purpose of both these documents was to prohibit those in governing positions from exercising any powers that would be unfair to the People, and to which the People would not consent to if given a choice. That choice is their natural right, or "God given right." It is the basis for the "rights" (life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others) stated in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights (cannot be severed by government or the People).

my point is that its all semantics because even with all the case law or evidence that the government is violating our rights regardless if they are natural, constitutional, or civil rights the fact is they are going to continue abusing and violating all our various rights simply because they have become too powerful to stop and simply don't care.

I would disagree with you as to this being about semantics (the study of the meaning of words) for there can be no effective argument that our rights come from the Constitution or from "government." I fully agree that the "government" is neither upholding our Lawful natural rights, nor abiding by the limitations on their own rights as imposed by the Constitution which they have sworn an oath to obey, uphold, and defend. The only reason they are willing to admit that we have a Constitution is so that they can come up with unconstitutional amendments that would degrade it, or a Constitutional Convention that would entirely rewrite it. You're right in stating that they will continue what they are doing. They will continue this until the People recognize and utilize their natural rights and Lawful power to stop them and end the insanity.

[wayne.ct]

Rights belong to the people

I think it more accurate to say rights belong to individual persons by nature. People came before governments were created to govern them. Therefore, a constitution cannot create or bestow a right. So, it is inaccurate to say that people get their rights from a government. And, it is also inaccurate to say that people get their rights from society. Also, rights do not come FROM a collective, or group, or society. To ask where they come from is to divert from the reality and from the truth. Simply, they come from being a natural person. All other ideas of rights are layered on top of this foundation truth.

[5150]

I think it more accurate to say rights belong to individual persons by nature. People came before governments were created to govern them. Therefore, a constitution cannot create or bestow a right. So, it is inaccurate to say that people get their rights from a government. And, it is also inaccurate to say that people get their rights from society. Also, rights do not come FROM a collective, or group, or society. To ask where they come from is to divert from the reality and from the truth. Simply, they come from being a natural person. All other ideas of rights are layered on top of this foundation truth.

That sums it up very easy and directly and says it all every clearly. Thank you

Now if I can just get others, especially the LEOs and government to understand this before they put me back in jail again for having a gun

[Danny B]

Dishing out death from the mega-parasite

I generally post on economic pressures in the general discussion thread. I found an excellent article fom Martin Armstrong that i want to pass along. I will do several excerpts but, you should read the whole article. Armstrong is a historian extrordinaire.
"People never start wars, only governments which are not the people."
"It is also never private debt that causes the end of a nation, it is the debt of government."
Paine; “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse (cooperation of people creating an economy) the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”
"We can see that despite the American and French Revolutions, government reverts always back to the dominant punisher assuming the very same power against which the people revolted to begin with."

"Thomas Jefferson was highly practical. He wanted the Constitution to automatically expire every 19 years and he was against any government debt."
"The idea of crypto-currencies is also rather foolish for nothing can compete against a government that is ruthless and broke. They have the guns and the tanks and will use them against the people. Our hope is to identify the problem and spread the word. Yeltsin stood on the tanks in Russia and asked the troops not to fire on their own people. If the pawns of government refuse to massacre their own people, then we can win."

"This is why Brussels is now calling for a European Army. That will be their power and sending Greek troops into Germany will prevent the troops from siding with the people. This is also why there is a mad rush to create robots for war."
So What Can We Do? | Armstrong Economics
It has been a long time tradition to use foreign troops on your own people. Targets on a screen are much easier to kill than people right in front of you. Killer Robots are close to the perfect solution.
Here is a link to the economic presures thread;
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...ssures-25.html

[wayne.ct]

Connect the dots

In the Armstrong article (above) several historical instances were mentioned in which bankers were killed by revolutionaries, etc. The banks and some other large institutions seem to have all the guns and force but seem to lose their power and their ability to control events when there is a bank run. That was true then, and it is true now. So, what is a bank run? Have you ever seen a bank run? A number of years ago, I had a bank account in a local bank. It was the only bank account I had. My pay check was automatically deposited in that account and I did not know how precarious the bank was. I did not know the bank was in financial distress. I did not know or appreciate the risk I was taking. One day, while at work, a coworker told me that bank, my bank, was being taken over by the FDIC and my account would probably be frozen. I may have had $300 in the account. ATMs were quite new, at that time, but I was in the habit of making withdrawals using the ATM. I think I left work early that day, to swing by the ATM. Sure enough, I was unable to make a withdrawal and the bank was closed and was bought by another local bank. I forget whether I ever got my money back, but I was young and it did not ruin my life. At the same time, I remember the incident well.

Get ready because the same thing will probably happen again. And, this time, it will probably be on a larger scale. I equate my experience to what a modern day bank run would look like. It all starts with a few people drawing out some cash or spending money on trade-able "assets", extra food, fuel, metal, arms, ammo, etc. This is already beginning to take place. It is a process that takes time, but it is growing. The people that act first protect themselves and reduce their risk. Those that follow and act later in time buy less protection and have a greater risk. As time goes forward, they get less and less protection and greater and greater risk. Eventually, those at the end of the line get no protection and have actual losses. The risk of loss becomes actual losses for them.

The trend is quite clear. Everyone needs to wake up and do what is best. The sooner the better. The trend is your friend. Don't fight the trend. It is bigger than all of us. It is bigger than governments and politicians. Do what is best for you and anyone you care about. You may already know all this. You probably do. But, if not, you owe it to yourself to think about it. It's real.