Comments on David Wilcock’s November 12, 2014 Commentary

{If you haven’t read David’s comments you can find a copy here: http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/david-wilcock-the-global-collateral-accounts-are-absolutely-real/}

I have a lot of respect for David’s ability to do research and to organize that research into a marketable book, however, there are things about David’s outlook on matters that I do take exception with.

I agree with David that there is no real political choice left in the U.S. as both parties are so controlled by elitist that voting for one is the same as voting for another.   I do, however, think David does those that follow him an injustice by trying to place blame on one party or one group of politically oriented people to the exclusion of the evidence.

His misconception that the “government shutdown” was harmful misses the mark! First, pretenses must be maintained of an illusion of choice for the masses so “conflict” between the parties must be maintained.   That illusion falls apart if you simply ask hard questions about why neither party presses the advantage when things are so blatantly out of whack.  Secondly, the so-called “government shutdown” brought harm to absolutely no one.   Government workers were impacted by having to stay home and not go to work but were paid for those days off after the “settlement” so they weren’t harmed.  Checks were distributed to those who receive disbursements from the government rendering no harm there as well.   So I have to ask, “David, where is the harm that you so casually talk about”?

Furthermore, your constant referral to Neocon’s is misleading in that conservatives aren’t the only ones at issue here.  The only factor about conservatives is that they may represent a political belief system different than your own but are neither right or wrong, good or bad.

Instead of some politically depraved people being even a contributing factor, what I see is a global elite that would like to control everything about the U.S. including all aspects of our “way of life”.   I note that those that belong to that elite come from all walks of life and it would appear as if they can be found across the political spectrum.   These elites have embedded themselves in the parties representing both sides and/or have managed to take control or manipulate enough politicians to control both major political parties.

When I look at the elites I see a lot of familiar names; on the “conservative” side I see Bush, Hunt, and others and names like Gates, Soros, Clinton, and others on the “liberal” side.   What they all share are groups like Bilderberger and Bohemian Grove.   Attendees at functions of these groups are often the very same people whether considered left or right and are without regard to political affiliation except for their belief that they should be “running the world”.

So why don’t we just stop trying to use name calling and simply face the fact that it is the masses against those that believe they are “the powers that should decide everything”.   It doesn’t matter who is in control of the government the end result is going to always be what is in the best interests of TPTB until the American people decide to make it different than that.

As for the Rochefeller/Israeli faction being represented by either party, may I ask, when was the last time that Congress controlled by either party went against the interests of that faction?   As far as I know they haven’t since Israel was created from Palestine by the UN after WWII.   I don’t see where trying to create a division between those that are being unjustly treated accomplishes anything.

David, you are correct in that those that voted for something different did so for entirely different reasons. They voted that way due mostly to disgust with the conditions that they find themselves in.   The long term unemployed stands at over 3 million Americans and you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t know or has someone close to them that is in that group.

Most are tired of the constant struggle to make ends meet since the rate of inflation since Obama has been in office is at 12% while the wage earner’s real weekly earnings are only up 0.3%.   Food stamp recipients are up 44% which speaks to the dropping level of household incomes that is effecting most Americans.

Although unemployment numbers are given at around 6% that doesn’t take into consideration those that were dropped from the count simply because they are considered to no longer be looking for work.  Additionally, Americans live in stress of losing the jobs they have because if, god forbid, they do the average length of unemployment is still nearly 9 months before you can find a new job.   The jobs that people finally got as the “new” jobs were created weren’t in the higher hourly wage jobs they lost but in lower hourly wage jobs that were created.

Take a look at home ownership; the number of people who own their homes today is 20% less than it was in 2008 with the prospect of home ownership growing more remote all the time.   Don’t you think that also has something to do with the dissatisfaction?

You are right they are no longer buying the lie that things are better and are getting better because the people know it isn’t.   So yeah, what they voted for what may not turn out to be any better but they are hoping that at least a message is being sent to the Republicans as well as to the Democrats that lack of consideration of the needs of the people will not be tolerated.

Simply because the electorate decided to seek change doesn’t equate to any kind of “last chance” for the Republicans!   Just as the Democrats have done since 2008, they will continue to support the policies and attitudes that benefit TPTB.  The population will look and hope for an alternative but unless some independent person who can lead appears from nowhere there will be a constant back and forth shifting until the government collapses or is taken over outright by the elite.   If it collapses whether forced by economic conditions or by other means what will rise from the ashes, if the people aren’t careful, will be a totalitarian dictatorship which will give TPTB exactly what it is waiting for.  Once that happens it will be much harder to displace them but not impossible.

If Putin and the Chinese dumps their holdings of U.S. T-Notes all at once they just might shoot themselves in the foot.   Such a move could cause a sufficient backlash in the global markets that it would cause a devaluing of their own currencies to the point of causing harm to their own people.   Yet on the other hand that might not be such a bad thing.   If conditions around the world got bad enough maybe there would be enough of a “hitting the bottom” that the entire planet could come out of it creating a better place entirely.  But on the other hand that just might be the opening that the elite needs to take over world domination.

You speak of countries printing new currencies but what value would it have beyond what the current currency has?   Simply printing money doesn’t give it value.  What gives it value is the productivity of the people that use that currency and what others are wiling to trade for that currency.  If the world economy is forced to collapse who would buy what is produced?  If a country produces a new currency what incentive would there be for any other country to accept the new currency?  What you are taking about isn’t simply replacing currency but the creation of a new economic system.

[I see David has added some additional comments and I’ll comment on those tomorrow.]

NESARA, Global Accounts, Rapture, ETs; Who or What is going to save YOU?

Wouldn’t it be just grand if we didn’t need to do anything for ourselves and someone else would come along, bail us out of the mess we’ve created, make us instantly wealthy, and bring on the new age without us lifting a finger?

Now everyone who is convinced that any of this is really going to happen move to the left side of the room.   The rest of us needs to move over to the right side of the room so we can have a little conversation about reality.

As I talk about in the pages associated with this blog, I’m pretty much weird and have a different type of philosophical and political viewpoint.   Because of those two factors, plus others, I often sit back take things in and then just mull them over.   Such has been the case with all of the feel good, I don’t have to do anything solutions to the current conditions we find ourselves in.

Anyone who truly believes that ETs will come in to release us from the influence of TPTB [The Powers That Be] or some miracle act will relieve us of the ongoing exercise of survival will badly misinformed should consider a reality check.

What is it going to take to get people to readily see that nothing changes in their personal lives until they take responsibility for it and make change happen?  Just as that is the reality as to our personal lives it is also the reality in our homes, communities, states or provinces, nations and planet as a whole.

Changes happen in our relationships and homes only after we start to change the way we are.   Once we understand that it is not what the other person does that creates the problem but how we react and what we do that is at issue.   It’s not that a husband leaves his socks on the bedroom floor but how we react to the socks being on the floor of the bedroom that contributes to the problem.

If we react by getting angry and yelling about them leaving their socks lying around what do we expect but an angry confrontation in return.   We should try to look at why do we react in such an extreme manner to find out what truly is the issue that lies hidden underneath.   By changing how we perceive the events in our lives and what constitutes right and wrong reaction does our energies begin to effect others into making changes themselves.

Thus by each of us making individual changes does the social memory complex fabric begin to change in such a manner that the actions of the individuals are molded into a more cohesive harmony.  Only by changing the “moral” standards which we dictate to be acceptable behavior will we get the world to change.

“To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order; we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right.”
Confucius

 

Common Law and Sovereignty-Not The Answer!

Because of my occupation I have been around the sovereignty movement for most of 30 years.  Yes it’s that old and has been around a long time.   Just like the old time snake oil salesmen, I’ve seen the sovereignty concept pitched for use for just about everything.

As for the current common law/sovereignty movement, the underlying desire and hunger for change and something better which is systemic to the current conditions we find ourselves in today is the foundation being used for personal sovereignty being pitched as the way to gain fulfillment of those desires and hunger pangs.

The problem with that is it is purely based on a lack of knowledge and the failure to be open minded enough to not see all effecting factors.  There is no such thing as personal sovereignty!  Sovereignty is supreme power or authority over something and that something is usually control or the governing of a group of people.  Truthfully we don’t and can never have supreme authority or power over these bodies we inhabit at all.  The mere fact we can’t control the health or death of it should be sufficient to make that point obvious.

Back to a more direct point, let’s begin with an overly simplified investigation of what is “common law”.  Common law is what arose in the 12th and 13th centuries as civilizations, especially the civilizations on the British Isle, came out of the “dark ages”.  The justice system that existed prior to that was a chaotic system based on feudal law over ridden by the authority of the monarchy.  Under that system each feudal estate was under the control of the local landowner who set the laws for his estate but owed allegiance to and was subject to the taxation of the crown.

As an example of how the free man faced justice, If I was to steal an apple on one estate I might be made to do sufficient extra work until I paid for that apple with the amount of work determined by the head of the feudal estate.  On another estate for the theft of an apple I might be placed in some type of confinement for 10 years.

The system of justice was riddled with inequity.  To attempt to solve the problem the English system began evolving not because of the inequity for the common people but because those of titled nobility got tired of the burdensome actions of the monarchy.

This evolving was manifested through the creation of certain documents that specified that limited the power of the monarchy and established certain rights for the nobles which bled down to the common people.

What came out of the discontent of the nobles began, as far as the legal system was concerned, with basically three different courts being established within the English system.  Laws were drawn up and put into place by a two house parliamentary system.

It was the duty of the crown to enforce the laws while the courts decided how those laws were applied.

As the courts decided, or issued rulings, on how those laws were to be applied in various circumstances those rulings then became how they were used in applying the laws to future cases.   This then is truly what is “common law” and to be more specific the common law as we know it is really something called case based law.

[Remember I said this was an overly simplified view so don’t ding too hard with the comments!]

What most people today are thinking about when they refer to “common law” is more akin to the inalienable rights that Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence.  They are trying to say that each of us at birth have certain rights that should be sacrosanct.  They see that even that “rights” are being abused and infringed upon by those abusers of power.  They desire to regain a semblance of being in control and they look for a way to protect those rights and make them inviolable.

They have reasoned that the people have a right to do whatever necessary to seek out the way to make them inviolable.  Someone then came along and said look I have the solution and its based upon the “common law”.  But the “common law” that they seem to think exists, doesn’t and never has.

The promoters of this approach then came up with something they are calling a common law jury. The create this system for creating and running these juries but when they try to give it legitimacy through historical precedent that they go astray.

Since there has never been anything even close to what they are trying to create or remotely conceived of in any document, for them to say the power rests in common law is a fallacy and deception.

They point to the U.S. grand jury system and use a single statement by a single judge as proof.  However, if you research the case the statement was made in regards to you find it was referring to a very limited definition of a single characteristic of the grand jury system.

The grand jury that exists in the U.S. Constitution was created to correct a flaw in the English case law or common law system.  In the English system at the time of the American Revolution the representative of the English crown had the sole authority to decide who and with what crime a person was charged with.  This of course led to abuse of power by the representatives of the crown, hence, the need to limit the power of the representatives of the government.

To correct that abuse of power problem the founders of this country established a panel of peers system to decide and determine when there was cause enough for a person to be charged and tried of a crime.  The way that system is implemented has evolved through the years influenced by our three branch and checks and balances system.

To begin the process a representative of the government (Federal prosecutor) has to convince a Federal district judge that there is sufficient reason to believe that it would be in the best interest of the welfare of the people to seat a grand jury.  The prosecutor has to prove that it is in the best interest of the people to further determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant charging a person with a crime.

Once a judge is satisfied he will authorize the calling of jurors to make up a grand jury.  A grand jury is composed of between 16 and 23 members and most times with 2-3 alternates.  To protect the “target” of a grand jury investigation and the identity of those  testifying in case there is no indictment the work and session of a grand jury are secret.

That doesn’t mean that the “target” of a grand jury isn’t made aware of the presence of a grand jury investigating something about them as all grand juries issues a letter, called a target letter, to those that the grand jury will be focusing upon.  Those targeted by the grand jury are given the opportunity if they so choose to appear before the grand and give testimony but the government cannot compel them to testify.

A grand jury does not have unlimited time to make up their minds whether to indict or not.   A Federal grand jury is limited to 18 months plus one 6 month extension to reach agreement on an indictment or fail to indict.  To reach indictment only requires that 12 members of the 16-23 members of the grand jury reach agreement for an indictment.

The biggest problem with the grand jury system is a tendency for the grand jurors to believe that even if there really isn’t enough evidence to prove the crime that the next phrase will correct any mistakes they may make.  [Hence, the old remark that a Federal prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich for murder.]  Once a “target” is indicted they are then arrested, processed and then goes through the long period until he gets his day in court to face the determination of whether they are found to be innocent or guilty.

However, the fallacy in the notion that the grand jury’s findings are cushioned by the system is that simply having to endure the arrest and trial process usually winds up destroying the person even if they turn out to be not guilty.

What the common law/sovereignty movement is trying to do today is create some kind of pseudo-grand jury.  However, there is no grounds of legitimacy or legality for the existence of such a jury.  The minimum that would be needed for such a jury to have any power would be societal acceptance, which is sorely lacking. Without a basis to draw the power for simply existence from then the actions of the so-called common law jury becomes nothing more than kangaroo justice and vigilantism.

The more they try to “indict” people on grounds not truly supported by legal evidence but instead upon human emotion, the more they will be seen as a lunatic fringe element as bad if not worse than the ones they claim to be against.   You cannot end tyranny by using the tactics of a tyrant yourself.

They try to convince others and justify themselves by speaking to those longings, desires and characteristics which are inherit traits in all people to want to be free.   They try to justify that because there have been those who have been prone to abuse of power that the only way to correct the situation is to “take justice into your own hands”.

All this will do over time is lead to violence in some form or the other by either members of the movement itself or by the government in “protection” of those being targeted by the common law juries.

Those basic human traits at the heart of all of this can, in most cases, be defined as rights.   These would of course include the right to exist and be, the right to do as one pleases as long as what you do doesn’t infringe upon another individuals right to do as they please, and the right to do whatever one wants to make themselves happy as long as you do not infringe upon others’ right to find happiness as well.  These are the most common of those human traits to which we should be entitled to simply because we exist as a human.  These are also the inalienable rights that I spoke of earlier that Jefferson saw as so important, so fundamental, that he addressed those same rights in the Declaration of Independence.

I agree with the desire that change needs to come but disagree with the how it should come to pass.  The United States was created to be the bellwether for this planet to show how a nation can be a leader in the area of personal liberties.  However, a few men from the very beginning have tried their very greatest to usurp that power and distort it to their own use creating a delay in the achievement of our nation’s highest and best purpose.

Change will come when the people themselves have become weary of being the downtrodden.   No person can be forced to succumb to the will of another without his own willingness to allow it.

Are there times when there is a price to pay for taking such a stand? Absolutely!   Is it too high a price to pay?  Never!

The only thing that keeps one from standing strong against tyranny is fear.   Fear mostly of death and dying.  If one can overcome that fear then the battle is won.

If tomorrow morning when the sun arose 200 million Americans said, “no more will we allow our liberties to be trampled”, those who are attempting to subject us to their will could not ever create enough force to be successful.

All it will take for lasting permanent change is a leader to appear that will guide this nation toward a new beginning, a new life, a new dawn where the rights of the individual not the rights of the masses is the primary focus of this country.   A leader that will be the captain that will steer this country into an era of economic growth and prosperity.  A leader with vision and integrity.

Such people do exist!  We had such a leader to some degree in John Kennedy but he was too much too soon without the support that he needed to make him unstoppable.  Now is the time, we only need to find the person.  LET THE SEARCH BEGIN!

Asa

A Little Truth In Honor of Earth Day or The Great Climate LIE!

Originally posted April 21, 2012 in one of my other blogs!

I am no great degreed academic scholar but simply an Average Joe that like; Franklin, Galileo, Vespuci, and others, is a student of the sciences.

By simply taking the facts as gathered by others and studying those facts I have found striking and glaring problems with the theories that others have derived from the same data. I will attempt in as little space as possible to succinctly and as clearly as possible state what it is that truly is in the data that is commonly available.

All of the data currently being used to studying global warming is the results of the ice coring project that produced what is referred as the Vostok Ice Core Data. The NOAA gives “In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m [~11,886 feet] (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999)” as a description of what constitutes the Vostok Ice Core.

The first question that should be asked is why is the ice core data only coming from Antarctica? Why isn’t there data from other locations? The answer of course is simply that ice has not been present in any other location for a period that extends this far into the past indicating that at some points in the past the only place on Earth where an ice cap was to be found was in Antarctica.

The Summary for Policymakers report of the IPCC is a publishing of a theoretical concept and is not absolute scientific proof that manmade greenhouse gases has significant impact on global warming.

The IPCC itself continues throughout the report to describe its conclusions in the terms of “very likely”, “very high confidence”, “high confidence”, “likely”, and “more likely than not” which is a prime indicator that the results being used to create the illusion that greenhouse gases is the cause of global warming is mere speculation.

The report itself identifies on page 9 that approximately 125,000 years ago was “The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period” (ed. please note the statement that it was significantly warmer than present) and that the “reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise” (ed. that’s approx. 13-20 feet higer).

Other reports and sources based on physical evidence available state that approximately 120,000 years ago that sea level was 6 meters higher than they are today indicating that the volume of water in the ocean would have to have been supplemented by almost all of the northern polar ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet.

The report detailing their opinions on the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) states that the average polar temperatures were at that time 3°C to 5°C higher (ed. 1.8°F to 9°F) than they are at present and those increases were the result not of greenhouse caused warming but simply naturally caused.

The attempt to make a distinction between causes of cyclical temperature previously and current temperature increase has no scientific foundation on which to rest.

The Summary for Policymakers continued the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC which projected continuing decadal temperature increases, with a projection of 0.15°C to 0.3°C for the period 1990 to 2005 in the prior report and 0.2°C (ed. 0.36°F) in future decades extending beyond this report, when the actual mean global temperature over the last decade has not increased but decreased.

This gives rise to questioning whether the assumptions that underlie the theory are valid.

The Summary also states as a summation that “The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise”. Again we have here an acknowledgement by the IPCC that even with greenhouse gases the “the future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago”.

The ice core data brings to the forefront the larger picture that approximately every 125,000 years there is an interglacial warming of the planet caused not by external factors by as a course of normal cycles through which the planet passes.

When the presence of such a cycle is accepted, an analysis of the data from a period of approximately 300 years (1750 to present) would mean that the data would represent a segment of only 2/1000th of the total cycle.

This is far too an insufficient period to be able to base the conclusion that greenhouse caused gases have played a significant role in effecting the overall warming cycle.

Apparent in the ice core data is the realization that, if anything, anthropogenic effects have postponed the warming cycle as the expected global warming has been delayed and the temperatures for this cycle are not reaching the anticipated levels as quickly.

From the data we are far past due for an increase in global temperatures whose effect would have caused a significant increase in sea levels well above those of today as evidenced by the geological data that shows the sea level a mere 125,000 years ago was 20 feet higher than today.

Again in 2005 when the additional ice cores were taken to increase the period covered to 800,000 years the fact remains that at 125,000, 250,000, and 375,000 years ago the carbon dioxide levels were equal to or greater than they are today which helps to explain why 125,000 years ago hardwood forests were growing above the Arctic Circle.