Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Stan Monteith’

Here are the Top 10 all-time articles at FauxCapitalist.com by the end of 2015:

1) Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor” (2013)
2) I’m blowing the whistle on World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes (2014)
3) Australia has $15 an hour minimum wage and is ranked more economically free than the U.S. (2010)
4) Joel Skousen’s critique of World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes (2014)
5) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin (2011)
6) The United States isn’t a federal corporation (2011)
7) Who is behind enenews.com? (2011)
8) No evidence that your birth certificate is traded on any exchange (2011)
9) Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker laughs at the great increase in wealth disparity over the past 10 to 15 years, and at Americans for not speaking out more forcibly against it (2011)
10) More evidence that Fritz Springmeier is a phony: A New World Order colony on Mars (2012)

Read Full Post »

Prior to this year, I had listed the top 10 articles of each year that were written in that same year.

But with my writing being relatively sparse this year, I am presenting the top 10 accessed articles in this year.

1) Joel Skousen’s critique of World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes (2014)
2) I’m blowing the whistle on World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes (2014)
3) Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor” (2013)
4) The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say money should be gold or silver coin (2011)
5) The United States isn’t a federal corporation (2011)
6) Meet Gary Franchi, the radical Zionist behind Next News Network (2014)
7) No evidence that your birth certificate is traded on any exchange (2011)
8) Who is behind enenews.com? (2011)
9) Veterans Today’s Gordon Duff and his elite bio (2012)
10) Joel Skousen exposes Doug Hagmann’s “insider” source as disinfo (2012)

Read Full Post »

Andrew NapolitanoFrom his February 18, 2014 appearance on the Tom Woods Show, Judge Andrew Napolitano said (at 16:04):

Even when Lew Rockwell and you, and I, are dining together, I am the most libertarian person in the room.

and:

The long answer is that I am the quintessential Rothbardian. I believe that you have the right to avoid the state, to avoid the government, the absolute moral right to do so.

For more on Judge Napolitano, see my article, Dr. Stan Monteith on Judge Andrew Napolitano: “Is he another plant in the conservative movement?”, in response to Judge Napolitano’s statement that the first American to shoot down a drone flying over their house where their kids are playing would be an “American hero.”

Read Full Post »

Art OlivierArt Olivier, Former Mayor of Bellflower, California, former Libertarian candidate for Vice-President of the United States and producer of the 9/11 thriller, Operation Terror, spoke about his $100,000 film being blocked by Alex Jones’ media outlet, on the January 21, 2014 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, with the full audio here.

Art disclosed that in the six months prior to the release of his film on September 11, 2012, he had sent a copy of the film to Alex Jones’ staff, with them responding back that it didn’t work, so he sent another copy.

He said that they initially responded to him, but went quiet. Despite that, he followed up by contacting other film producers who had their productions advertised and sold through Infowars to contact Alex Jones’ staff, as well as regular guests of the show, and it was all to no avail.

Despite setting aside a large amount of money for paid advertising, they wouldn’t even take his money for ads on the websites or radio.

This despite Alex Jones’ aggressive promotion of the Loose Change documentaries and several 9/11 books, regularly discussing 9/11 on his radio show, and featuring an entire section on 9/11 on Infowars.com up until mid-2013.

A friend of Alex Jones and fellow radio broadcaster, Dr. Stan Monteith, has publicly stated that he knows of infiltrators who are planted close to some top figures in the conservative and liberty movement, but he doesn’t tell them, because they’d never believe him (8 mins. in).

Dr. Stan had previously disclosed his view — later to be proven correct — that Ron Paul’s campaign had been infiltrated by the other side, and Ron Paul was intentionally being kept off of alternative media outlets, including Dr. Stan Monteith’s show and even Alex Jones’.

After the campaign was over, Alex Jones publicly disclosed that Ron Paul’s campaign had been infiltrated but the matter had been cleared up, and Ron Paul was again allowed on the show.

Given that the evidence shows that Alex Jones’ show has been similarly infiltrated, I hope others will join in bringing this matter to the attention of Alex Jones and his listeners so that he can deal with the infiltration of his organization in a similarly expedient manner.

Other topics of the interview include Alex Jones’ handling of the Sandy Hook shootings and Boston Marathon bombings, his portrayal of “no planers” as mentally ill, and analyzing some of his particular behaviour during his Piers Morgan appearance.

Alex Jones’ friend and fellow radio broadcaster, Joyce Riley, rightly expressed concern over Alex Jones’ behaviour during his Piers Morgan appearance (starting 2 mins. in), regarding the impression he gave to average Americans of lawful gun owners.

Dr. Stan Monteith acknowledged that Alex Jones wasn’t actually angry on the show, and that it was “Alex being Alex”. However, despite Alex Jones’ most hardcore fans cheering him on as standing up to Piers Morgan and mass media gatekeeping and obfuscation, the question is, what impression did his behaviour have on average American viewers?

Jason disclosed that at a local Canadian libertarian gathering he had attended at the time, an attendee said that after seeing Alex Jones’ appearance, he was concerned about people like him having guns — which was the impression given to many average Americans, as well.

For more on Art Olivier, see this January 10 interview on the Real Deal with Jim Fetzer, where he discusses this issue starting 49 minutes in, and my earlier interview with Art, on May 26, 2013.

Read Full Post »

Gerald CelenteTo my surprise, just three days after my article, Why is Gerald Celente Avoiding Dr. Stan Monteith’s Show?, Gerald Celente made a brief appearance (22 minutes) on the show, on January 6, 2014.

In my article, I had pointed out that Dr. Stan had tried getting him on at least half a dozen times since 2009, all to no avail.

I asked whether it was because Celente is purportedly anti-Zionist, or because he realized that Dr. Stan’s audience is more cerebral and discerning, or whether it was something else, because, clearly, he wasn’t interested in coming on, and had cancelled at the last minute in December.

Now, it seems, we have our answer. It appears, on the surface, at least, to be primarily, if not exclusively, related to him thinking he’s got better things to do now that he’s so popular in the alternative media.

This despite Dr. Stan’s show having nearly 70 terrestrial radio affiliates over the course of each week. Celente tipped his hat during the interview that he had recently appeared on Russian TV.

True to his carnival barking self, he was in full form 19 minutes into the interview, if you’re up for a little bit of pure entertainment, lacking any meaningful results.

For more on Gerald Celente, see my article, To blow off ritualistic steam, watch Gerald Celente. For real solutions, watch Wayne Walton and Tom J. Kennedy.

Read Full Post »

Gerald CelenteThis is a question that came to my mind in 2012, by which Dr. Stan disclosed on a show with Ron Brown, a gold and silver dealer, that he had tried around half a dozen times to get Gerald Celente on his show, but there had no luck.

Then, I saw that Gerald Celente was listed as a guest on December 20 at 6 PM EST, but he was replaced at the last minute with Stephen Frank, whom I have previously interviewed.

The schedule still shows a rebroadcast on December 27 mentioning Gerald Celente, but it’s the interview with Stephen Frank.

Then, we notice this tweet at 4:02 PM:

Gerald-Celente-Radio-Liberty-announcement-Screen Shot 2014-01-03 at 10.00.06 AM

I suspect — based on my experience in following the alternative media since 2006, though I have no hard proof — that Celente’s staff scheduled him in for the 20th, completely unbeknownst to Celente, and once he found out, he unceremoniously cancelled.

Why is Celente avoiding Dr. Stan Monteith’s show?

Could it be because Dr. Stan is an avowed Christian Zionist, and Celente has many Jewish employees who are apparently staunchly anti-Zionist?

Or could it be that Celente realized that his carnival barking approach won’t really go down so well with Dr. Stan’s more cerebral audience?

Or is it something else, altogether?

Past archives show that he was on Dr. Stan’s show in February 2009, and nothing from that interview indicates that anything went wrong, which is why Dr. Stan wanted to have him on again.

For what I think of Zionism, see here. But as far as being against Zionism, that won’t stop me from going on Dr. Stan’s show, as he is a sincere Christian Zionist, based on his sincere religious convictions, though I don’t share them, nor did the majority of Christians for 1800 years until a man named Cyrus I. Scofield came on the scene with his Scofield Bible.

The shows I won’t go on are those where the hosts are disingenuously supportive of Zionism, either as opportunists, through deliberate ignorance, blind support based on ethnic origin, or something more sinister, such as working for the other side, and it’s one or more of those reasons that I won’t go on Coast to Coast AM or the Alex Jones Show.

For more on Gerald Celente, see my article, To blow off ritualistic steam, watch Gerald Celente. For real solutions, watch Wayne Walton and Tom J. Kennedy, and Gerald Celente’s failed Q1 2012 European bank holiday prediction.

For my recent interview with Dr. Stan, see here.

Read Full Post »

United States ConstitutionI fell for the myth of the “godless” U.S. Constitution until 2012.

Here are the reasons the United States Constitution is not “godless”, with thanks to Pastor David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution for bringing up some of these points up during a presentation he made on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith:

Starting with the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Where do “Blessings” come from, if not from God?

And the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that the “Creator” is the author of “Liberty”, as we see from its text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Then, there are the references in the Constitution to oaths, such as this one:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.

The distinguishing feature between an Oath and Affirmation is that an oath is sworn to God, while an affirmation is only solemnly stated.

We see this from the Merriam-Webster dictionary’s primary definition for oath:

1a (1) : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says

and with all definitions of affirmation, there is no mention of God:

1a : the act of affirming
b : something affirmed : a positive assertion
2 : a solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath

The second definition shows that one makes an affirmation by conscientiously declining to take an oath, meaning that one doesn’t believe in God, or doesn’t feel that it is necessary to do so, while still believing in God.

Then, for the requirement of the President upon taking office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Then, for the oath or affirmation required of Senators and Representatives:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The “no religious Test” requirement is internally supported in the Constitution by the ability to either swear an oath or make an affirmation, and its purpose was to prevent religious divisions among the many Christian denominations at the time, and later, among different religions.

The most cited reference made by those advocating a “godless” Constitution refer to the First Amendment, which states, in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution. It only limits Congress from establishing any official national religion, and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in the United States. It does nothing to prevent the States from doing so, within their respective jurisdictions. This is evidenced by the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut having official state religions after the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

And since the Executive can only execute laws passed by Congress, if Congress can pass no laws establishing an official religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the Executive also cannot implement any regulations doing the same.

Then, since the judicial branch can only interpret laws passed by Congress, they are also prevented from doing the same.

Notice that there is no “wall of separation between Church and State” mentioned here, or anywhere else in the Constitution. In fact, that reference is from a 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which referred to a one-way wall of separation, with the newly constituted federal government unable to interfere with religious worship in any way.

Then, in the Fourth Amendment, we see a reference to an “Oath”.

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.

Long before 2012, I was aware of the mention of “the Year of our Lord” in the Constitution, and accepted the notion that it was just used as a convention at the time.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

However, if it connoted nothing religious, then why did Thomas Jefferson’s aforementioned 1802 letter only show him signing the date and year, and mentioning nothing about “the Year of our Lord”?

Finally, the mention of most of the rights in the Bill of Rights are references to natural rights, and where do those natural rights come from? The signers of the Declaration of Independence made it clear that they are from the “Creator”, who is also “Nature’s God”.

For more on the godly nature of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. form of government, see my interview with Pastor David Whitney here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

hatrickpenry

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

Recovering Austrians

Supporting recovering Austrian Economics addicts and their families

Real Currencies

Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury