On the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I called into Truth Hertz with Charles Giuliani and chatted with him for almost an hour (starting at 13 minutes) about the problems with the official narrative as part of his 8-show series on the 9/11 attacks.
For my November 4, 2013 Red Ice Radio appearance, see here.
You don’t learn this in the publicly-funded educational system.
Dr. Edwin Vieira, author of The Sword and Sovereignty, was on the Power Hour with Joyce Riley on July 28, 2014, and provided an excellent and concise explanation of “a well-regulated Militia,” with reference to the United States and its Constitution.
- The Department of Homeland Security is unconstitutional
– A “well-regulated Militia” means statutory authorization and regulation by the several States, and doesn’t include privately-run militias
– The definition of Militia is best expressed by the Constitution of Virginia, which is the whole body of the people
– Exemptions could be given to most for completing a first-aid course, for example
– Women originally not part of the Militia because they were not legally emancipated, but would now be considered part of the Militia
– Age restrictions in place (originally up to 44 years old) in the 1700s before modern medicine could alleviate these conditions, and modern society allows individuals to serve in other capacities, like office work
– The National Guard isn’t a Militia, with the proof being that there is no notice given to all citizens to participate in it
– The Militia is intended to “execute the laws of the Union,” meaning that there is to be no federal agencies that perform a police or para-military function outside of the Militia
– Police abuses could be kept in check by the Militia, which is composed of the body of the people
– Constitutional Militias could be brought in any time — the only thing stopping that is the political class and a lack of citizen demand for them from State officials
Australia’s ahead of Canada, in getting its first explicitly libertarian parliamentarian — Senator David Leyonhjelm.
It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, given Australia’s high Economic Freedom Index rating for several years in a row by the Heritage Foundation, with its 2014 rating of third place compared to Canada in sixth place and the United States as low as 11th place.
It sure helped that Australia now has an elected senate, as there’s no way an open libertarian would be appointed to any legislative body in a parliamentary system.
On his July 23, 2014 Real World of Money appearance on One Radio Network with Patrick Timpone, currency historian and financial analyst, Andy Gause, implied that there’s nothing to World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes’ claims about 50-year gold-backed bonds (starting at 14m). Audio here:
Timpone: “We had Karen Hudes, the World Bank whistleblower, she was on the show, and she was talking about 50-year-old bonds, that uh, blah blah, right — gold-backed bonds.“
Gause: “Yeah, I got ‘em. You know, you can buy 600 million at face value, for, you know, 20 grand.“
Timpone: “And supposedly the banks never paid interest the interest on them, and now they’re doing all this stuff. Could there be something to this?“
It becomes immediately obvious in his responses when you listen to the audio that he doesn’t think much of these claims about any gold-backed bonds being worth much more than collector items.
For more on Karen Hudes, see my articles:
1) Andy Gause casts doubt on Karen Hudes’ gold claims
2) Joel Skousen’s critique of World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes
3) I’m blowing the whistle on World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes