Archive for January 13, 2008

IN A NUTSHELL: Skousen – ElectionManipulation In Full Swing….

January 13, 2008 2 comments

Skousen – Election Manipulation In Full SwingBy Joel Skousen
Editor – World Affairs Brief
We live in a fractured society pitting a few million ideologically savvy people against a growing majority of ill-informed voters whose ideas are manipulated by the media. Almost all voters are dissatisfied with the status quo, but often for the wrong reasons. The majority keeps being lured away from limited government by the promise of greater federal health and education benefits as if that were the solution to galloping inflation. In fact, it is the problem-not the solution.

Predictably, they always vote for change, but change never comes. This is because we are rarely presented with a candidate who understands the totality of change necessary. When a candidate like Ron Paul emerges, who really understands the problems and proposes the inevitable tough solutions, he is labeled as a kook, or extremist,…but mostly ignored. About 2-5% of the nation is able to see through it all, but as we found out in the New Hampshire primary, it’s not enough to overtake the momentum of ignorance within the majority. The system is rigged for secrecy, and takes advantage of the average American’s dependence upon the half-truths and distortions we are fed by the establishment media, public education and conventional political theory. Thus, the typical voter holds an almost infinite variety of ignorant and irrational ideas about both cause and effect of our national crises and thus becomes easy prey to false solutions and media manipulation. We saw all these things play out in New Hampshire this week, including some last minute media manipulation and vote fraud–signs that the Powers That Be (PTB) are having to scramble to control this race.

If the establish media does its job right and if the power brokers have selected an electable candidate (with name recognition, charisma, and lack of principles sufficient to follow orders), the election is usually a done deal by the time the early primaries are finished. The anointed ones from each party are designated “front runners” before the primaries and that is usually enough to sway the voters of the first few primaries to ratify that view. Then the media declare the respective winners as “unstoppable” –having a “mandate from the people.”

This kind of manipulation is possible because, in the absence of accurate knowledge and solid reasoning, a significant amount of swing voters tend to follow whoever is perceived to be winning (within their general political proclivity–liberal or conservative). Only a small percentage of dedicated liberals on the Left and constitutional conservatives on the Right understand the actual criteria behind their choices and make decisions based upon that analysis. Only this small percentage of Americans are highly resistant to media bias. Mainstream, soft thinking liberals and conservatives are easily swayed to some extent because they don’t have a good concept of the details either in perception or analysis which would allow them to see contradictions in what is presented to them.

The proof of this sloppy perception and contradictory reasoning among voters was found in a detailed analysis of those who voted for John McCain this week. Incredibly, John “the surge” McCain got a large percentage of votes from those who oppose the war. McCain is the biggest supporter of the war in Iraq. Even more amazing, he got a majority of his votes from those who don’t like Bush, even though McCain is a solid supporter of President Bush. McCain even got thousands of votes from people who were against illegal immigration and President Bush’s amnesty proposals–which McCain has always supported. What were these people thinking? He also got a lot of votes from those who support abortion even though McCain claims to be pro-life. Perhaps, in this case, they correctly noted his support for life was only token support. In practice he always says he opposes the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.

If these voters had exercised even a pittance of rational analysis, they would have selected Ron Paul, the only candidate who is consistently pro-life, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-NWO, anti-North American Union, and deficit spending and has the votes in Congress to prove that it’s not just rhetoric. Why then do they not vote for someone imminently qualified that matches their major positions on the issues?

I find it hard to believe they didn’t know of Ron Paul, even with the media blackout. Perhaps they were swayed by a combination of propaganda that “Ron Paul can’t win” (a kind of self-fulfilling media prophecy, when Paul is denied coverage), and a flurry of reactionary hate Romney sentiment–carefully portrayed as “got to vote for McCain.” Some of the independents voted for McCain because they still perceived him as the competitor of Bush as in the 2004 primary (which McCain won) which is bad thinking and equally bad perception. Even if they had only followed the establishment news this past year they would have seen that McCain was and still is in lock step with the Bush administration.

Lastly, many surely reacted positively to the swarm of newspaper endorsements for McCain that came out of nowhere in a strangely unanimous boost for McCain, and no one else–even as his campaign was moribund and dying. This was bandwagon politics creating an artificial surge, and it worked. The miraculous “comeback” of John McCain was pure manipulation. Naturally, funding to his campaign by major corporations has also “miraculously” come back out of nowhere to give McCain new millions to spend for promotion.

The establishment push for Huckabee in Iowa was done strictly to defeat Romney–not because they like this evangelical populist (even though he did do everything his liberal advisors induced him to do as governor of Arkansas). Huckabee is not electable nationwide and will soon be discarded by the promoters.

What is also hypocritical (but not unexpected), is that the media has NOT picked up on the “Swift Boat” type of attacks on McCain that are swarming the internet. The media is obviously protecting McCain’s phony “war hero” reputation from the attacks of his fellow veterans and POWs who charge McCain with collaborating with the enemy in prison and refusing to support the breaking of our own government’s veil of secrecy surrounding America’s abandonment of the POW/MIAs in Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War. In the 2004 election, Vietnam Swift Boat veterans attacked John Kerry’s claims to heroism in that war, with devastating effect–thanks to the Media making it a huge issue. In contrary manner, they are choosing not to give a voice to McCain’s detractors. The media promoted the attack on Kerry in 2004 because the establishment had ordained Bush to win and needed to undermine the appeal of Kerry.

While McCain is being positioned as the new front runner, don’t count Rudy Giuliani out just yet. This former Time “Man of the Year” (for being complicit in the 9/11 cover-up) is still the one they want–despite the growing public knowledge about his links to corruption. McCain is being pushed forward (for now) as insurance in case Giuliani is not able to pull out a major victory in Florida and/or Super Tuesday. If Giuliani fails to win in those primaries, he will not survive the cut. They want McCain to inherit front runner status rather than Romney.

For some reason the establishment is dead set against Romney, even though Romney has surrounded himself with conventional Republican political hacks and even one very bad globalist “security” advisor (Coffer Black of Blackwater fame). But he isn’t the only one. Here is the listing of all the globalist advisors controlling each of the mainstream candidates’ campaigns, courtesy of the Washington Post. Negative commentary added is mine.

John McCain: Henry Kissinger; Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, covert CIA drug pipeline manager and Bush family ally; Robert McFarlane, Reagan/Bush national security adviser, Iran-Contra scandal; William Kristol, arch neocon editor of The Weekly Standard; Alexander Haig, Reagan/Bush secretary of state; George Shultz, Reagan/Bush secretary of state, Hoover Institution, Bechtel exec., “kingmaker” responsible for the vetting of George W. Bush prior to recommending him to the establishment for president; Brent Scowcroft, Kissinger associate and national security advisor to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush; James Woolsey, former CIA director; Lawrence Eagleburger, Sec. of State under Bush 41; William Ball, diplomat and Reagan administration Sec. of Navy; Colin Powell, Sec of State under Bush and Army officer who helped cover up the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Barack Obama: Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security advisor and handler of Pres. Carter; Anthony Lake, Clinton administration national security adviser and president’s handler; Sarah Sewall, Clinton administration deputy secretary of defense, counter-insurgency czar; Richard Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter-terrorism expert; Susan Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist and NSC member of globalist Brookings Institution; Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer, NSC Near East and Asian affairs at Brookings.

Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton; Madeline Albright, Clinton administration secretary of state responsible for the globalist intervention in the Balkans; Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security adviser and handler; Richard Holbrooke, UN ambassador; Gen. Wesley Clark, handled the attack on Serbia/Kosovo; Leslie Gelb, arch globalist on the Council on Foreign Relations, former State and Defense Department official; Martin Indyk, Clinton administration Israel ambassador, Brookings Inst.; Strobe Talbott, second Clinton handler, and Deputy Sec. of State, creator of Caspian oil group, Brookings Inst.; Jeffrey Smith, former CIA general counsel.

Rudy Giuliani: Kim Holmes, former George W. Bush assistant secretary of state; Louis Freeh, former FBI director; Stephen Yates, former deputy assistant to Dick Cheney; Norman Podhoretz, neocon leader at Hudson Institute; Kenneth Weinstein, also of Hudson Inst.; various other neocon advisors from the globalist Hoover Institution and other neo-con institutions too numerous to list.

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has not been forthcoming about his advisors, but what the Post reveals is quite enough: Ed Rollins, Republican political operative sent in to salvage Huckabee’s campaign just prior to the national media boost; Frank Gaffney, neocon at CFR and Center for Security Policy;

John Edwards: Barry Blechman, Jimmy Carter assistant director of US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, founder and chairman of the Henry L. Stimson Center; Irving Blickstein, former assistant deputy chief of Naval operations, RAND Corporation (reportedly a CIA front);

Mitt Romney: Coffer Black, former CIA and George W. Bush state department counter-terrorism officer, vice president of Blackwater USA; Alberto Cardenas, lobbyist and former chairman of Florida Republican party; Roger Noriega, George W. Bush assistant secretary for Western hemisphere affairs; Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R, Mich.), ranking member, House Intelligence Committee.”

You can tell by the depth of globalist advisors who is really in the establishment camp. Huckabee, Edwards and Romney have the fewest. McCain, Clinton and Giuliani have the most and the worst. Obama has the holdovers from the Carter administration-another indication that he may not be the globalists’ intended winner.

Because of his mainstream advisors, Romney’s positions are in general alignment with the Bush administration, so why isn’t he acceptable to the establishment. Certainly, they don’t care about his religion. Because Romney is not an insider like Giuliani and McCain, they fear that they would have another Reagan on their hands if he got the nomination–someone they would have to manipulate to work around his basic conservative values, as they did Reagan. Lest any of you still harbor the misconception that Reagan was a strong ideological conservative, let me set the record straight. Reagan did have basic conservative ideals, but he had a bad habit of compromising those ideals in order to get legislation passed in a Democratic controlled Congress. His record as Governor of California was one of many unwise compromises, which carried forward into his presidency. Still he wasn’t a conspiring globalist and so they had to work hard to control him. He was much more compliant after the assassination attempt by CIA patsy John Hinkley Jr.

Even though, like Reagon, Romney isn’t a knowing conspirator, he is trying so hard to gain the acceptance of the establishment, that his policies end up supporting globalist goals. That’s what happens to good men who choose to remain ignorant of conspiracy theories and facts. Romney is, however, much sharper intellectually than Reagan (who could rarely recognize when a speech given to a religious conservative audience on one night was in contradiction to another speech he would give the next day to a liberal audience). Romney is an “in charge” professional who can write his own speeches and is capable of taking a 180 degree turn if he sees something wrong. That’s what they fear, and it is obvious by the barrage of negative press and opinion Romney is getting from the pundits that the word is out to “kill Romney’s bid.” That’s not easy to do, however, given Romney’s wealth and ability to fund his own campaign.

I think the establishment strategy is to hit Romney hard enough with bad press in the early primaries to get him to quit the race before the convention. For example, the media keeps taking shots at Romney claiming, “people don’t trust him.” Well, a lot of people don’t trust McCain or Giuliani either, but the media doesn’t make an issue of that. It is obvious they are only targeting Romney, trying to counter his natural likeability. That’s also why the media keeps bringing up the anti-Mormon bias of the evangelical Christians, a sad commentary on our nation’s state of intolerance for other denominations’ sincerely held beliefs.

World Affairs Brief, January 11, 2008.

Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief


Donate to
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Email
Article Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,
Highest Quality Live Programs


Also known as Gunny G’s
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs….

Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams Guardsman guilt of illegally transferring ‘machine gun’ after firearm malfunctions

January 13, 2008 Leave a comment
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams
Guardsman guilt of illegally transferring ‘machine gun’ after firearm malfunctions

Posted: January 13, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2008 A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.

The verdict of guilty on one count in the case against David Olofson was confirmed yesterday by the clerk’s office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

That means now that anyone whose weapon malfunctions is subject to charges of having or handling a banned gun, according to an expert witness who reports that the particular problem is a well-known malfunction and was even the subject of a recall from the manufacturer.

(Story continues below)

“If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT. I guess we know now what Sen. Kennedy meant when he said he looked forward to working with [Acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director] Mike Sullivan on Gun control issues, after his committee approved him for full Senate vote,” Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC, said in a blog.

“To those in the sporting culture who have derided ‘black guns’ and so-called ‘assault weapons'; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to ‘fire more than once,'” he wrote in a blog run by Red’s Trading Post.

Red Trading Post manager Ryan Horsley

“Hey, but don’t worry,” Savage said. “The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret. Also if you know of information that proves YOUR innocence, maybe the ATF won’t claim that it’s tax information at your trial and prevent YOUR judge from viewing it.”

He told an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

“Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him,” Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. “He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed,” Savage said.

A couple of police officers who also were at the ranged immediately approached him and started asking questions about the “automatic” fire, and he told them it was a borrowed weapon.

“Mr. Olofson, being a responsible person, went down to the police station and said, ‘I’m in the National Guard. I know what a machine gun looks like. That’s not it,'” Savage said.

But instead of having the issues resolve, Savage said, it got worse.

He reported that because of the malfunction, the rifle was seized and sent to the Firearm Technology Branch, the testing arm of the federal agency.

“The examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be ‘just a rifle,'” Savage said. “You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning.”

He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use “soft primered commercial ammunition.”

“FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms,” Savage said. “They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time…’a machinegun.’ ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with ‘Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.’. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki ‘an undisclosed amount of money’ to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial,” Savage said.

And then during the trial, the prosecution told the judge it would not provide some information defense lawyers felt would clear their client, Savage continued. That included the fact that the rifle’s manufacturer, Olympic Arms, had been issued a recall notice for that very model in 1986 over an issue of guns inadvertently slipping into full automatic mode, if certain parts were worn or if certain ammunition was used.

Ryan Horsley, who posts the Red’s Trading Post blog, said the results were “very concerning.”

“Basically if your Ruger 10/22, Browning Citori Over and Under or Remington 11-87 malfunction and fire more than one round at a time; the ATF will now consider it a machine gun,” he wrote.

He told WND he’s had personal experience with guns that malfunction and fire more than one bullet. Even double-barreled shotguns, if both shells would be released at once, now could be considered machine guns and illegal, he said.

“This precedent is very dangerous,” he said.

Defense attorneys in the Olofson case couldn’t be reached immediately to determine whether an appeal would be pursued, but Savage noted the arguments by assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Hannstad, who handled the prosecution.

“Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states ‘any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.’ To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, ‘Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy’s double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it’s a machinegun?’ He went back to … ‘any weapon that shoots…'” Savage said.

On the Red’s blog, commenters were incensed.

“‘Innocent until proven guilty’ has been transformed by the AFT into ‘guilty until framed,’ said LibertyPlease.

Horsley also told WND the 2008 edition of Firearms Law Deskbook quotes from a 1999 case in which the court concluded the law on automatic weapons “is not intended to trap the unwary innocent, and well intentioned citizen who possess an otherwise semi-automatic weapon that, by repeated use of the weapon, by the inevitable wear and tear of sporting activities, or by means of mere inattention, happenstance, or illfortune, fires more than semi-automatically.”

Special offers:

When it’s time to shoot back – Get ‘Armed Response,’ the guide to firearms, self-defense

Perfect gift for pistol-packin’ mama – ‘Stayin’ Alive’ shows guns are indeed for girls

“Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense”

Related stories:

BATF rebuked for attacks on gun dealers

Gun shop: Complaint could have been ruse

Gun-shop owner gets ‘breath of fresh air’

‘Blog’ puts fear into gun shop inspectors

New gun control: Shut down shops

Your doctor could put you on no-gun list

Expert offers teachers free weapons training

State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses

Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights

Buy a house, get a gun free

New use for schoolbooks: Stopping bullets

New Yorkers rally for ‘illegal’ guns

Clinton-era war on guns revealed

U.N. gun confab ends in frustration

The U.N.: Gunning for more power

NRA warns of U.N. gun control

Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban

‘Anti-gang’ bill endangers gun rights?

County drops homeowner gun charges

Related commentaries:

The history of gun control, part 2

The history of gun control, part 1

Guns, the devil and God

Our God-given right of self-defense

Where gun control leads

People power, not police power

Why citizens must own and carry firearms

Self-defense risky? Try the alternative

How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes?

A war report discredited

<!– A war report discredited Boston Globe FEW medical journals have the storied reputation of The Lancet, a British publication founded in 1823. In the course of its long history, The Lancet has published work of exceptional influence, such as Joseph Lister’s principles of antiseptics in 1867 and Howard Florey’s Nobel Prize-winning discoveries on penicillin in 1940. Today it is one of the most frequently cited medical … Jeff Jacoby January 13, 2008 –>


A war report discredited

FEW medical journals have the storied reputation of The Lancet, a British publication founded in 1823. In the course of its long history, The Lancet has published work of exceptional influence, such as Joseph Lister’s principles of antiseptics in 1867 and Howard Florey’s Nobel Prize-winning discoveries on penicillin in 1940. Today it is one of the most frequently cited medical journals in the world.

So naturally there was great interest when the Lancet published a study in October 2006, three weeks before the midterm US elections, reporting that 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the US-led war.

Hundreds of news outlets, to say nothing of antiwar activists and lawmakers, publicized the astonishing figure, which was more than 10 times the death toll estimated by other sources. (The Iraqi health ministry, for example, put the mortality level through June 2006 at 50,000.)

If The Lancet’s number was accurate, more Iraqis had died in the two years since the US invasion than during the eight-year war with Iran. President Bush, asked about the study, dismissed it out of hand: “I don’t consider it a credible report.” Tony Blair’s spokesman also brushed it off as “not . . . anywhere near accurate.”

But the media played it up. “One in 40 Iraqis killed since invasion,” blared a front-page headline in the Guardian, a leading British paper.‘s story began: “War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis, or more than 500 people a day, since the US-led invasion, a new study reports.” Few journalists questioned the integrity of the study or its authors, Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Iraqi scientist Riyadh Lafta. NPR’s Richard Harris reported asking Burnham, “Right before the election you’re making this announcement. Is this politically motivated? And he said, no, it’s not politically motivated.”

But the truth, it turns out, is that the report was drenched with politics, and its jaw-dropping conclusions should have inspired anything but confidence.

In an extensively researched cover story last week, National Journal took a close look under the hood of the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study. Reporters Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon found that it was marred by grave flaws, such as unsupervised Iraqi survey teams, and survey samples that were too small to be statistically valid.

The study’s authors refused to release most of their underlying data so other researchers could double-check it. The single disk they finally, grudgingly, supplied contained suspicious evidence of “data-heaping” – that is, fabricated numbers. Researchers failed to gather basic demographic data from those they interviewed, a key safeguard against fraud.

“They failed to do any of the [routine] things to prevent fabrication,” Fritz Scheuren, vice president for statistics at the National Opinion Research Center, told the reporters.

Bad as the study’s methodological defects were, its political taint was worse:

Much of the funding for the study came from the Open Society Institute of leftist billionaire George Soros, a strident critic of the Iraq war who, as Munro and Cannon point out, “spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004.”

Coauthors Burnham and Roberts were avowed opponents of the Iraq war, and submitted their report to The Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election.

Roberts, a self-described “advocate” committed to “ending the war,” even sought the Democratic nomination for New York’s 24th Congressional District.

“It was a combination of Iraq and Katrina that just put me over the top,” he told National Journal.

Lancet editor Richard Horton “also makes no secret of his leftist politics,” Munro and Cannon write.

At a September 2006 rally, he publicly denounced “this axis of Anglo-American imperialism” for causing “millions of people . . . to die in poverty and disease.” Under Horton, The Lancet has increasingly been accused of shoddiness and sensationalism.

In 2005, 30 leading British scientists blasted Horton’s “desperate headline-seeking” and charged him with running “badly conducted and poorly refereed scare stories.” The claim that the US-led invasion of Iraq had triggered a slaughter of almost Rwandan proportions was a gross and outlandish exaggeration; it should have been greeted with extreme skepticism.

But because it served the interests of those eager to discredit the war as a moral catastrophe, common-sense standards were ignored. “In our view, the Hopkins study stands until someone knocks it down,” editorialized the Baltimore Sun.

Now someone has, devastatingly. But will the debunking be trumpeted as loudly and clearly as the original report? Don’t hold your breath.

Jeff Jacoby’s e-mail address is 

© Copyright var crYear = new Date(); document.write(crYear.getFullYear());2008 The New York Times Company


January 13, 2008 2 comments

Derry Brownfield
January 13, 2008

I recently aired a program dealing with the fact that our governments meet their budgets by making criminals out of honest people. In Redford Township, Michigan the police department awards officers overtime and incentives for meeting traffic violation quotas. The policy is to pay officers time-and-a-half their hourly wages, according to the number of tickets written, and not the actual hours worked. For every two tickets the officer writes, they will get paid for one hour of overtime. Police are everywhere handing out $140 traffic violations, but the program is “for the citizen’s safety.”

The city of Springfield, Missouri shortened the yellow time of traffic lights by one-half second and their RED LIGHT CAMERAS became much more PROFITABLE. Lasercraft is the company that operates the system in Springfield and they test the intersections to determine which ones should have the yellow time shortened to make the intersection and the RED LIGHT CAMERAS more PROFITABLE. The Texas Transportation institute found a one second reduction in yellow time resulted in a 100% increase in the number of violations.

Saint George, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, gets 28% of its budget through traffic tickets.

I also aired a segment of the program where a young man that had done nothing wrong, was yelled at by a cop who said he could make up charges against him if he didn’t cooperate. The cop was asking him personal questions, which he had no right or reason to ask. The driver had a video camera in his car and the entire episode was exposed to the news media.

After airing this information, I received an e-mail from a listener who writes, “If this does not chill people’s blood, they are not listening. The typical response is, ‘this can’t happen here.’ My response is ‘it is happening here right now.’ I have the privilege of having spent 30+ years in the Merchant Marines. I am a Native American and the color of my skin has reduced me to 3rd class status in any situation involving law enforcement. I have been accused of being every kind of terrorist starting when the Cubans were hijacking airplanes in the 70’s and from then on.

Outrage at the harassment I have experienced led me to go to law school, where I learned that there is no defense against this sort of things, short of massive public refusal to participate. Perhaps I have brought some of the problems on myself because I do not answer personal questions directed to me by police officers, which are designed to let them pretend they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ to harass me further. I do not submit to searches of myself or my vehicle without a warrant. This has led to a great deal of additional harassment and I have been arrested on occasion.

This is what people can expect if they refuse to participate in the effort to make this into a fascist police state. Nevertheless, I believe it is everyone’s obligation to stand by their Constitutional rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. If not – we will lose all our rights. When the officer invents charges against you, follow up on that by going to court. You do not need a lawyer because you will lose regardless. But you will tie up their time. When you lose, appeal. I recently stated in court, ‘If you like what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, let the police continue to do what they have done to me. You will see a lot more of it.’

The Judge objected strenuously to this and it was stricken from the record without further discussion. I lost, but when I appealed the charges were dropped.”

We have always had good cops-bad cops, but we are no longer living in the good-ole-days, and I put the blame on our ancestors. Not the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor. No, it was the following generations that allowed this cancerous infection to eat away at our freedoms in the first place. A patient doesn’t die because he has one or two cancer cells. No one ever died from cancer in one day. To end a life the cell must become malignant and reproduce itself until it can destroy vital organs. So it is with a tyrannical government.

Our Founding Fathers gave us a prescription that would prevent socialism, communism, a dictatorship or any other form of government alien to our Constitutional Republic. This malignant tumor we are fighting today began with a pimple or a mole over 100 years ago. Our great-great grandparents knew the Constitution. They knew the writings of our early patriots because these things were taught in our schools. Yet, knowing their freedoms didn’t mean they were willing to protect them. At that period of time they were in a much better position to rebel than we are today. They should never have accepted a marriage license, a driver’s license or a license for their car. They didn’t license their horse and buggy, why should a car be any different?

In 1913 on the eve of Christmas vacation, under the direction of President Woodrow Wilson, a few hand picked members of Congress voted to allow the bankers to take control of our money system. When Congress convened after the holiday, the Federal Reserve Act should have been immediately repealed and Congress should have impeached Wilson. Previous generations who knew and understood our Constitutional form of government much better than the general public does today, should have forced their representatives to follow Constitutional Law. The attitude then and still is today, a little here and a little there won’t hurt; this is still the greatest nation in the world. It may be, but some day, some time this giant tumor must be removed. It will be an expensive operation and the patient may not survive.

I could write pages concerning the freedoms we have lost, that could have been saved if our grandparents would have rebelled. My mother was always “nipping something in the bud.” Last April we had a hard freeze across much of the nations’ breadbasket. Fruit trees were blooming and setting buds. The frost “nipped them in the bud” and there are no apples, peaches and nuts on those trees today. These lost freedoms could have been “nipped in the bud” just like that malignant tumor could have been stopped while in the one cell stage. Since our ancestors didn’t take care of the problem, we now have a much greater fight on our hands.

Yes, we can still fight, and we should, but it would have been a much easier battle if our ancestors had “nipped it in the bud” before our government became the monstrosity that it is today.

© 2008 Derry Brownfield – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Derry Brownfield was born in 1932 and grew up during the depression. He is a farmer and a broadcaster. Derry attended the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri where he received his B.S. and M.S. degrees. He taught Vocational Agriculture several years before going to work as a Marketing Specialist with the Missouri Department of Agriculture. Derry served as Director of the Kansas City Livestock Market Foundation at the Kansas City Stockyard prior to establishing himself in farm broadcasting. Derry started farming when he was 16 years old and received the Future Farmers of America State Farmer degree in 1949. Since that time the Brownfield Farm has grown to over 1000 acres maintaining a herd of 200 registered Charolias cows.

In 1972, Derry and his partner established the Brownfield Network which now serves 250 radio stations throughout the Midwest with news and market information. In 1994, Derry started his own syndicated radio talk show and he is one of the most popular radio talk show hosts in America. The Derry Brownfield Show can be heard on approximately 80 radio stations in 23 states. With his entertaining sense of humor and witty commentary he has captured audiences for over 30 years. His ability to present an informative talk show while being light and colorful is why he has a large loyal listening audience.

Derry Brownfield is a practical farmer, a practical business man and a very entertaining speaker. He travels extensively throughout the country speaking about his common-sense point of view.

Web Site:




R. W. “Dick” Gaines


January 13, 2008 Leave a comment


PART 1 of 2

By Betty Freauf

January 13, 2008

Senator Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP convention said, “I would remind you that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”[1] I wasn’t involved in politics during the Goldwater era but I’m guessing the GOP delegates went wild when they heard Senator Barry Goldwater voice those words.

He declared federal aid to education unconstitutional and warned of its inherent “evils and dangers.” Federal aid”, he wrote, “invariably means federal control.” Ronald Reagan and the 1990s Republicans pledged in their platform to shut down Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education (DOE). (Reagan did not fulfill that promise and in 1985 signed the U.S-Soviet Education Agreement). And as another example of our bloated bureaucracy, Goldwater said no branch of the national government was ever given any power over agriculture.[2] These governmental agencies were created with the blessings of both Republicans and Democrats to advance United Nations Regional Administrative government where there is no accountability by unelected bureaucrats who operate with complete immunity.

The Republicans still call him “Mr. Conservative” and while I’ve since read about things he favored, such as abortion being a Tenth Amendment state’s rights issue, which most evangelical conservatives today would not embrace, he definitely left his mark in history. In the book Conscience of a Conservative he stated, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed” before I have first determined whether it is Constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents ‘interests’, I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Although Goldwater may have mellowed towards the end, some have reported that Senator Barry Goldwater was a 33-degree Mason who loved to bash the Christian belief and called conservative Christians “the fringe.”[3] But now “the fringe” helps elect presidents and we are close to a total dictatorship. Naomi Wolf in her book The End of America illustrates what all dictators do which pretty much aligns with what we’ve been seeing unfolding before our eyes in America. She said dictatorships use citizen surveillance in a clear way: to blackmail and coerce the people, especially critics. In the 1960s and 1970s, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI amassed files on the private lives of political, union, Civil Rights, anti-war, and other leaders, and blackmailed or harassed them, Naomi writes. The FBI’s Counter Intelligence Programs (COINTELPRO) actions against civil rights workers and the left in the 1960s included planting fake evidence on them, sending bogus letters accusing them of adultery to ruin their marriages (one fake letter called Dr. King an ‘evil, immoral beast’ and suggested he kill himself), disclosing activists’ sexually transmitted diseases, tapping their phones, getting activists fired from their jobs, distributing false articles that portrayed them as drug abusers, and planting negative articles about them in newspapers. Naomi’s footnote said this information is from David Cunningham’s There’s Something Happening Here – the New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence.

And then she writes how the USA PATRIOT act set the stage for booksellers, librarians and even doctors to have to turn over to the state information about Americans that had been private up until then. The American Booksellers Foundations for Free Expression took a stand against this and librarians spoke out as well. (The National Socialists also went after the booksellers, librarians and doctors.)

She goes on to say when closed societies gather information on ordinary people’s lives – when people know that their book-buying and library records are open, their sexual behavior and financial decisions are no longer private, their conversations are bugged, their class lectures are taped, their protests are photographed by police, their medical records are exposed, and that all this information can be used against them – their will to challenge the regime in power falters.

Congressman Ron Paul for many years has been challenging the regimes under which he has served and his will to continue to do so in this current presidential campaign has remained steadfast under difficult criticism especially from the right and now, the left has supposedly uncovered some very negative remarks he allegedly made in some newsletter back in the 90s as recently revealed on CNN. I can only pray that evil being used to try to destroy Ron Paul that God will expose and turn into good.

Goldwater was convinced that the press was Communist because the reporters’ union, like all unions, was Communist: “If this country of ours ever falls,” warned Goldwater, “go back to the day in 1933 when the New York Post columnist Heywood Braun founded the American Newspaper Guild.”[4]

On September 4, 2005, I wrote an article entitled “Dipsticks in Washington, D.C.” that was, in retrospect, prophetic and should be read again. After that article was published, I received an e-mail as follows:

“Your recent article in has some of the same info that I got in 1981. I was a mechanic in… California working on a large moving van that belonged to a private party. The van was packed full of patriotic literature. There were several cases of cards 8 ½ x 5. The heading was THE LEVELERS. It described the plan of the ‘insiders’ to change the economy of the republic from a manufacturing base to a ‘service oriented’ base so that the living standard of the U.S. could be lowered and that of third world countries would be raised to level them out so that they could be merged into a one world government under the U.N.

“This is exactly what has happened. Federal Deficit Rosenfeldt (FDR) said ‘in politics nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.’ I, too, gave up on political parties years ago. I switched from Democrat to Republican in 1964 and supported Goldwater. An elderly friend who used to visit me in my shop… was in the Cow Palace when Goldwater got the nomination. He saw Goldwater go into a hotel room down the hall from his. He investigated the two men, who had that room, and discovered the Rockefellers employed them. That explains why Goldwater did not conduct a forceful campaign (against Lyndon B. Johnson). I was on the executive committee of the American Independent party until I left California. At 77 years of age, I don’t think I will be around long enough to take part in any great changes in the politics of this once great Republic…”

Thanks to the testimony of this gentleman, readers now are able to connect a few more dots to the corruption our country has and continues to experience since our elected, traitorous officials with total contempt disregard their oaths of office and step out from under the protection of the Constitution in order to accommodate the one worlders.

Energized grass root Republicans selected Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980 but whereas Goldwater was demonized by the media for his Constitutional stands, just as is happening to Ron Paul, Reagan compromised and was elected. Ron Paul has proven he, too, is not and never has been a compromiser when it comes to Constitutional principles. In fact, when “leftie” Ed Schutlz from Air America interviewed Ron, he asked if he felt the media had been unfair with lack of coverage of his campaign. Ron responded affirmatively. He said it was expected but his many years in politics taught him to recognize this was a trick question and quickly added just because it was unfair, he disapproved using government to level the playing field and make everything equal.

In 1966 “Red Ronnie Reagan reiterated his support for 1964 GOP presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater and then put Rockefeller Republicans, who hated and defeated Goldwater in charge of his campaign for governor.”[5]

In his 1979 book With No Apologies Barry Goldwater condemned the Trilateral Commission (a Rockefeller front) and other “world planners” for turning their backs on the independence of the USA.[6] But where was Goldwater in 1964? Why didn’t he call a press conference and expose them back then?

Barry Goldwater’s conservative legacy was firmly established and his truth seems to go marching on and resonating with Ron Paul voters. Thanks to O’Reilly at FOX criticizing Air America and telling how they were going bankrupt, I began listening and they are alive and well and it was good to hear Senator Goldwater’s son, Barry Goldwater, Jr. on the progressive, liberal Air America radio, preceding the New Hampshire vote interviewed by John Elliott. He also interviewed a number of others including Pat Buchanan and Congressman Duncan Hunter, who, along with Ron Paul, also were kept off the FOX GOP debate. Hunter voiced his disgust at the hypocrisy of FOX News who violated their motto: “We inform, you decide”. Duncan said he had a great town hall meeting with 3,000 independent New Hampshire voters during that debate and says he’s charging onward. Ron likewise met with voters when he was kept from debating.

Was it because FOX heard from disgusted viewers about the absence of Ron Paul prior to the New Hampshire debate that he was allowed on the South Carolina debate on January 10 or was it because Paul’s percentages were about equal to Thompson and Giuliani after the New Hampshire election and if they wanted Thompson and Giuliani, they felt obligated to include Paul, where he clobbered the other candidates. I was tickled to see Ron “snub” Sean Hannity after the debate claiming a previous engagement. Hannity went into his usual melt down mode and once again refused to acknowledge Paul’s overwhelming victory. [Read]

When referring to the left, Senator Goldwater, a former Democrat, said, “Let’s quit being nice about it. I’m tired of calling these people liberals. Liberal is a pretty nice word. Let’s call them socialists, for that’s what they are.”[7] But with fairness to John Elliott on Air America, I find him to be far more “fair and balanced” than FOX. Although all Air America talk show moderators hate President George Bush, I’ve detected on a few occasions they like what Presidential candidate Ron Paul is saying. On this occasion Elliott told Junior Goldwater “Even as a progressive, a sizable percentage of my audience is calling in for Ron Paul. He strikes a chord with Independents, Republicans and Democrats that are looking for a change. Why is that?” he asks. For part two click below.

Click here for part —–> 2,


1, 8/24/2006 Michael Savage Radio
2, Book: Where the Right Went Wrong ©2004 by Patrick Buchanan
3, Texe Marrs Flashpoint 11/12/1996
4, Book: Katharine the Great, and her Washington Post Empire © 1979 by Deborah Davis – P. 195
5, San Francisco Examiner 7/24/1966
6, New American 9/21/1992 P. 45
7, Human Events News 9/22/1960
8, New American 11/25/1996

© 2007 Betty Freauf – All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Betty is a former Oregon Republican party activist having served as state party secretary, county chairman, 5th congressional vice chairman and then elected chairman, and a precinct worker for many years but Betty gave up on the two-party system in 2004 and joined the Constitutional Party.

Betty is a researcher specializing in education, a freelance journalist and a regular contributor to



R. W. “Dick” Gaines


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,490 other followers