Bank Runs – A Useful Tactic, And All You Should Know On The Subject

WHAT ARE BANK RUNS?

A bank run occurs when many clients withdraw their money from a bank, because they believe the bank may cease to function in the near future. 

It is an efficient way to make a statement to the countries government. 

The video above talks about the shift of the French yellow vest movement to protesting the banks. This video touches a bit on the new laws against protesting, and how this new tactic is intended to be both legal, and nonviolent. He discusses the global implications, and how this idea could have large ripple effects. He also notes how the idea of a deliberate bank run has much more potential to affect those they intend to.

The first attempt ever to effect change by attempting a bank run. Dubbed “The Tax Collector’s Referendum”. Ties together very well how targeting the banks through a bank run can disrupt the finances of the 1%. Explains the reasoning behind the tactic, and why it can be tremendously useful.

What is a bank run? – Investopedia

HOW UNELECTED CENTRAL BANKS OPERATE

In these videos we are given a walk through of how our central bank works. The commercial banks all hold accounts at the federal reserves. Each bank is required to have a certain amount of cash on hand to satisfy loans from the reserve. All commercial banks hold accounts at the central banks.

We are also shown how banks operate, how our money is used by them, and how currency interacts with both commercial and central banks.

Investopedia explains central banks

How central banks influence currency supply

The 9 functions of central banks

IT'S LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR BANKS TO GIVE EVERYONE ALL THEIR MONEY

In this video, the idea is proposed what would happen if each person today asked to withdraw all their money in $100 bills. This would not actually be possible, as illustrated in video banks typically only have $.06 on hand for every $100 deposited due to the requirement of using our money to repay their loans from the recession in 2008. The balance of what we deposit facilitates loans to generate profits to keep system running.

As the video explains, the only cash at the Federal Reserve is that which they “reserve the right to print”. In the event all citizens did this, it would force the banks to borrow large amounts of money from the central bank, and respectively force them to print more currency. Essentially everyone withdrawing all their money would cause the banks to become bankrupt themselves, and the federal reserve would make us currency.

THE RISE OF GLOBAL 'BAIL-IN' POLICIES

In the video above, they talk more about the bail in policies. After the 2008 banking recession, laws were passed allowing banks to use deposits to prop up the institutions. The bank of Cyprus was a test run for these policies. Some depositers even had 60% of their savings seized! This was rolled out to the G20 countries, enacting plans in the EU, US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and more. The global central bank has recorded over $700 trillion units of currency deposited, with global GDP around $70 trillion. Currently, when you deposit money you become an uninsured creditor. There is not enough money in circulation to cover the losses from total bank collapse.
The video above talks about how banks are no longer simply holding our money, we are now actually loaning it to them. The yellow vests are calling for all citizens to withdraw all money. They advocate this legal nonviolent tactic to create an absolute nightmare for the 1%.
In the video above we are explained about how banks essentially run a scheme to gamble with our money for profit with diagrams. They discuss bank “bail ins”, and the bank of Cyprus.

They talk about bail in’s, and global banking. They give an example of how in 2013, one bank actually stole money from their customers by converting uninsured deposits into equity for recapitalization. These “bail in’s” are beginning to happen globally, and under the new rules “globally systemic banks will have to hold total loss absorbing capacity. Equity or debt that can be converted into shares of at least 16-20 % of their assets, weighted for risk”.

Bailouts are bad for politicians, and that is why this scheme was initially enacted. “The new global rules will force creditors to bear banks’ losses, ensuring taxpayers’ money should never again be used to bail out banks.” At the Brisbane G20 summit the countries all agreed to implement the new bail in concept. They pitch the idea as they would prevent recessions with bail in’s using money only from creditors, though in truth they are utilizing everyone’s money. They show how many countries have implemented these policies.

What are bail in’s?

More on the bank of Cyprus

The bank still exists too!

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE

In this video we are walked through the scenario of a bank run from the perspective of the banks balance sheet. Commercial banks essentially hold assets or bonds, loans to customers, shareholder equity or investments, and customer deposits.

They state that a recession or crash is inevitable, but predicting when is impossible due to the amount of manipulation. The largest world banks do not have close to enough cash on hand to give everyone their money. The only thing supporting the banks is peoples faith in the system itself.

The video touches on JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, TD, Alpha Bank, and Credit Unions. All institutions on hand only have only pennies on the dollar respective to total deposits. If everyone withdraws all their money these institutions would crumble respectively. “If your money is in the bank, it’s not yours, it’s theirs.” They suggest private vaults, gold or silver, and crypto currency as alternatives.

Banks operate on incredible risk, as they are no longer simply savings institutions. Where they now operate as investment banks our money is marked as a liability in their books because they can do almost anything with it. A man in Manatoba Canada was once told at a credit union that to withdraw a million dollars he would have to take out $100,000 each year to do so.

Through this video we come to learn more how banks work. Banks want cashless society’s so they own the money and have control of it. Bank runs ultimately can take the banks down altogether.

BANK RUNS CAN BE GOOD

“Runs can be very useful in threatening bankers to stop taking such excessive risks.”

A run ensures a bank will close before becoming insolvent and be forced to repay depositors in full without a bailout. We currently hold the power to threaten banks with total failure and no possibility of a life boat.

MORE ON HOW THEY WORK

WHAT DO WE DO WITH OUR MONEY AFTER A BANK RUN?

The video above appears to come from a tech podcast. This person discusses how quickly things can change in a modern age. A big focus of this video is the implications of crypto currency with the French yellow vests calling for a bank run. The idea of everyone simply hoarding cash seems foolish, and here we examine some of the benefits of global decentralized currency as well as what society may look like without banks.

– Adam Rice

NCID – An Opinion On How To Get Our Power Back

In this piece I’m going to examine a constitutional amendment that was proposed in 2012 and was suppressed to the point that it never gained any traction. The National Citizens Initiative For Democracy, or NCID, is very similar to the RIC which is currently a large focal point of the French Yellow Vest Movement. It’s based upon a concept that through referendums and initiatives citizens can create or remove laws to affect chance outside the existing branches of government. The NCID can be assessed in depth through the links at the end of the article and readers can see how they had proposed facilitating doing as such when the situation calls for it. I’ve met individuals throughout this movement who have proposed the idea of a fourth branch of government. In many ways I could see the NCID being just that, as it would essentially make the people most powerful through the referendums and would result in them being a check and balance on any branch of government.
Many times in the past when we have seen social uprisings (at least in my generation in U.S.A.) its been a frequent point of concern that there are too many demands. I’d like to suggest my opinion as to how something like the NCID could shorten a list of demands while still amount to a means to correct the overwhelming list of issues we face. Currently the people do not have the power that we were taught we did in school. I was educated to understand that the people are sovereign and our government is of, by, and for the people. The situation we see today though is a government run amuck and is routinely making choices against what a majority of people want. When focusing on one issue at a time it appears to me that a large majority of people do feel similarly enough and could agree on things, but the system isn’t set up so we can fix our own problems. We only vote on people from the party’s they present to us and as such we are regularly forced to choose the “lesser of two evils”.


When the people start organizing a movement and put together a list of things that need to be changed or fixed it appears to me the next step is to demand the government do the things we demand. Well, history would show that the government may do enough to quell the uprising but will never completely correct the system as a whole so exploitation never exists. Through the demand for NCID we demand one thing…our power back. If our government gave us this right (which we SHOULD already have) we could spend our time fixing many of these problems on our own without needing to demand action from the government. Through this proposal we would be the supreme power, similar to what most of us were taught in school. The beauty of this proposal is that it could truly be implemented to any form of government and net the same results.


There’s a saying that goes something like “people in power should not also write the rules of power”. This too ties into this proposal very much as it would allow us to remove any laws that are passed against the will of the people. In almost any situation the people could decide to do or not do whatever they vote on. I’d like to give a few examples to establish what I’m describing. Say the people wanted transparency in an investigation or an audit that is taking place but the process is kept classified, through binding referendum the people could not only declassify the proceedings but they could actually take a role of oversight in the process after a successful vote. In the case of something like 5g cell towers, the people could vote to opt out or have more studies done prior to it rolling out. In many cases there will be several options to choose from, and I will later touch on an improvement to HOW we vote as another movement has created something I think should be paired with this to be most effective. This referendum concept could truly be applied to anything from healthcare to education curriculum, budget, and more. Any time something is not being done the people can see it enacted and vice versa.


To touch on how we vote I’d like to direct some attention to the equal vote coalition. They use the term STAR voting, but I’ve heard this named score-choice voting most commonly. The general premise is instead of getting to give one vote to a single option in the list, voters will provide a score to each item on the list. In STAR voting each option can be rated from 1-5 based on desirability and the highest score wins. This is not the same thing as ranked choice voting, and living in a state that has used that method I would like to suggest why I feel this is a better option. First, in ranked choice you get 3 choices and in a situation where there are say 5 candidates you can only place a vote on the top 3. If your top choice does not get 50% or more of the vote then there is a second round where your vote now goes to your second choice. In our state there were long drawn out court battles over this process taking place and truthfully it appeared to drag out the process longer than it needed to. With a score based model like the equal vote coalition, there is no need for additional rounds and voters can give their opinion on all options. One primary goal is to not split the vote, but truthfully this could still happen with ranked choice where its nearly impossible in score choice. Imagine a scenario where there is an election for officials and now instead of there being “two evils” there are three. Many times people vote for the lesser of the two in fear of splitting a vote and getting the worse option. In the event that 3 candidates like that are presented, the ranked choice model would still result in many people picking the “lesser of three evils” and independent candidates would likely still not get a fair shake. The way I see it, only through a score choice model where people rate all options presented can we truly eliminate a “split vote” and take fear out of our voting process.

To conclude, I’d finally like to touch a bit on what these two things would look like when combined. Earlier I gave a few examples of how referendums could be used to vote on issues and exert our own power to fix them. With these referendums and this voting model we wouldn’t need to simply do yes/no votes on one solution. Take the issue of 5g cell phone towers again. Instead of voting to simply stop the 5g we could have several options: Stop it now, do more studies, proceed as planned, etc. People could be rating how much they like each option and the most desirable could win. The same could be true with almost any cause, when the people decide something must be done about an issue they can form committees for each stance on the issue and present an option to the referendum. When people vote they can give their opinion equally to each option and participate in a fair, inclusive, and transparent process that I feel would be far more successful than how things are done now. The way I see it, it may be of merit to revamp these two concepts into one singular idea as truthfully they fit together perfectly. In our yellow vest movement we can stay focused on the NCID as the solution to almost every issue we face because it gives us a great model to approach the solutions ourselves. We wouldn’t need demands as it pertains to each cause and if we get this one thing it may be the last time we need to demand anything from the government. Inefficient or corrupt officials could be voted out by the people if enough thought it were necessary and likewise the system itself would be modified just enough that it cannot only work for the 1% yet we wouldn’t need to tear the entire thing down and start fresh. These are just my opinions after months of thought on the concepts but I do think there’s enough merit to warrant others thinking a bit on the concept as we really are at a point in history where something needs to change as most problems in existence today should by no means be allowed to continue.

Equal Vote Coalition Website

National Citizens Initiative For Democracy Website

Washington’s Farewell Address 1796

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitutionwhich at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

On Est La – An American In France

Arriving in Paris I had butterflies in my stomach, right off the bat I was going to meet several people for the first time that I’d been working with online for months. Walking into the terminal at Charles DeGaulle airport Kate, Fred, and Robert were all waiting for me and flagged me down. We all connected and briefly walked to the car. Along the way there I quickly learned how difficult communication was going to be as my good friend Kate really spoke no English at all. I learned that Fred was pretty good with English, and we were lucky as it made many things a lot easier over the course of my next week in France.
Our first stop that day was the alliance jaune headquarters in Paris. We met several people there working on the yellow party’s campaign for the election may 26. Robert had a nice conversation with the woman about the failed RIC attempts that had been made in Utah while i still took in the gravity of what we were doing. I quickly got hungry so we all went to get some lunch and ended up at a KFC elsewhere in Paris where Fred bought us all lunch. The walk there was a shocking site as even with no protests that day we saw motorcades of military police that stretched entire blocks patrolling the city. At the KFC I was introduced to the huge change to European fast food restaurants – you now only order food from an automated terminal at all chains.


Over the meal Fred explained a lot to us about the election. He explained how the EU was supposed to be a good thing. After world war 2 the EU was sold to the french as a means of preventing wars like that, and came with many perks. He continued to also explain one specific downside to give an example of the complex situation. On one hand travelling to other countries is easier, but it can make the taxation unfair. In France employers have to pay a special tax on the wages they give employees. If a worker is paid $1000 euro, then the employer must pay $750 euro to the government. If the employer hires someone from a country like Poland then they are exempt from the tax. Many employers have now chosen to stop hiring french employees because it is cheaper and they likened it to our corporations choosing to hire undocumented workers to get around labor laws. Fred explained how he could envision many ways to stay in the EU and correct the issues but with many things, it may not work, and everyone had different opinions.
With their model, they had a plan that was an embodiment of the compromise in political stance between the younger generation and the older. In France there were many divides I witnessed people trying to work through. The biggest was between the elders wanting to fix the system and the young people wanting something new. Through the platform of the “yellow card” they could ideally move towards the RIC, and start fixing problems. Fred explained how the election process worked and even the steepness of the challenge ahead. In France they had 33 parties competing for this election, but they vote quite a bit differently than we do in America. Here the parties run candidates and we vote on the individual but there they vote on the party itself. Each party will create a list containing one member from each area of Paris. As people vote on each list the percentage of people are pulled proportionally from each list to serve in a portion of the parliament. He explained further how even at that point the representatives cannot create laws. Laws are proposed to parliament by a body no citizens vote for and these officials that are elected can only vote on these proposals.


After lunch we made a quick stop at the headquarters again and then drove to my friend Timothee’s house in Montargis where we’d stay for the next week. Before getting to the home we stopped at a local discount food store LIDL for a few things, and saw a GJ camp across the street. I would later learn how almost every group had at least one of these “camps”. A simple thing, these two had a pop up tent that they sat under located to the side of a rotary by the highway off-ramp. They placed signs all around the road where drivers would honk in support as they passed. The two men here explained how they had been arrested in the city for taking the french flags off the government buildings and returning them to the people. When he was caught, he was banned from Paris and each weekend he now has to check in with the sheriff. He responded by occupying the round point in Montargis on weekdays instead.


That evening we shared a social drink and all sat down for an exquisite home cooked meal. Timothee’s dad had prepared several soups for us with Tim’s wife. We shared some very interesting discussion over the meal with Fred, and Kate before they left. That night I spent a while talking to Timothee about philosophy and it was this evening I had one of my first revelations. He had briefly touched on how they use the same phrases “sleeping” and “wake up” the way we do. I believe he posed it like a question: “what do you think people do while they are out there each Saturday?” He explained to me for the first time that evening how the manifests themselves had actually become a tool to increase awareness of the members. As people talk to each other every Saturday they share ideas and grow. As philosophy meets collaboration the collective as a whole rises and better ideas naturally flourish. Where everything is vibrations (on a deep level), that the togetherness and sharing of ideas could actually be the most important element because people need to grow. We went to bed fairly early that night as there was a big project coming up the next day and we’d need to be up early.

The first whole day in France was the only day I was in Paris that I woke up earlier than Robert if I remember correctly. I took a trip with Tim, his wife, and a friend of his to a farm in the country side where posters for the alliance jaune were being distributed. The campaign posters were to be delivered all over the country and were arriving on a big truck. We unloaded something like 50,000 posters on palates and placed them in vans that arrived from all the big cities in the country. After dinner that night, Robert and I went out and explored Montargis at night and talked to many of the locals and discussed the Gilet Jaune with a bunch of people. We met people who both supported them, and others who didn’t. The next morning was manifest but we still ended up being out pretty late.

While in Montargis we were lucky enough to get a tour of the town. There was a large castle that we toured the outside of that had been converted into a school. We could see for miles from the top of the castle walls. Montargis is called the Venice of France by some due to its canal system and we followed them around the town. We saw a park where it was said that communism was birthed, and that Mao had spent extensive time in this town. The only museum was that of Chinese history and many toured here to see it. All in all this was one of the most beautiful places I had ever seen in my life. Timothee’s father was a teacher and we were lucky to have such kind and warm hosts while we spent our first week in the country.

The next day I slept in and had initially planned to go to a different town than Paris with Timothee. When I found in the morning he had other things required of him that day I contacted Robert. I thought he had already been in Paris but he was still at the train station in town waiting for a ride from Fred. I walked over to the station and we all rode to go to the manifest in Paris. We picked Kate up on our way to the city and traveled about an hour to the location where the manifestants were. It had been raining off and on much of the day which resulted in there being less people at the first location. We had to walk through a small park to get to the area where the GJ’s danced in the street. Horde’s of police lined the street in all black but let us enter safely.

Once we got to the crowd I saw a solitary car in the center of the road blasting bob Marley music while the protesters danced happily. Both sides of the road were blocked with police vehicles and officers. Everywhere small clicks of average people in vests ate, drank, and socialized. I saw nobody directly hassling the officers at this location, in fact most paid them no mind. A few individuals paraded a banner, others flew flags, and some sang chants through a megaphone. The large majority of people seemed to just be socializing and sharing ideas and stories. Eventually the officers moved in slowly and began to force the crowd out of the area. Fred explained that we had to leave but the group planned to reconvene in another location. As we walked back to the car we met a group of people headed where we were and talked a bit. We explained how we were actual yellow vest’s from america and saw all their faces light up with joy.

We next traveled to La Place De Republique on the other side of Paris. Already the streets were lined with hundreds of police officers. The all wore body armor, helmets, and carried shields and large guns. We passed safely to the square and my jaw dropped immediately. First, there were two box trucks equipped with massive exterior speakers blasting EDM music from live DJ’s. Crowds of young people drank beer and danced intensely on both sides of the central monument. Almost unnoticed at first, a much larger crowd of GJ’s quickly amassed the monument. As people arrived Robert flew our flag next to a man who held one of the flags reclaimed from the government buildings. A man came up to Robert and was very angry we were flying our flag but Robert did a wonderful job explaining our intentions and he left. The man with the french flag had a much more reasonable response and the two of them chatted while I filmed the crowd a bit. They set off yellow smoke and hung vests from the monument and called for the crowd to march.

We marched along with our flag in the crowd of a thousand or more people. We were very close to the back of the crowd and quickly realized we needed to run as we begun to hear explosions behind us. Flag in hand we hustled forward as the explosions continued. There was a moment when I looked over my shoulder and actually caught a glimpse of an exploding flash ball just feet behind me. I told Robert to run and we darted around a corner as I saw police chase the crowd a different way. We escaped safely and with our adrenaline pumping, I decided we should find the crowd and ensure they were safe. We came to an intersection closed down by a line of officers. An old man was arguing with an officer who was clearly threatening him, and the other was kicking chairs over in a restaurant hassling the patrons. We decided after a bit of convincing on Roberts part to go stand silently with our flag and face the police directly. I was admittedly quite scared but we did so and the police actually turned around shortly after.

By this point Robert and I were not with our friends Fred and Kate who had stayed back at the plaza. We walked back to the plaza to meet Kate and found the entire area surrounded by police officers. We knew they were going to force us back and they did initially, and everyone congregated across the street as certain individuals began to lead chants and songs to motivate the crowd. It was at this point we again took our flag out and stood in the street and sang along. Shortly after this everyone began to march towards the officers and they were pushed back a bit. The front line moved back and forth a bit and the crowd finally disbanded. In all the running during this manifest I lost my cell phone which both complicated some things here, but also in many ways made the rest of my trip much more interesting. We had lunch in Paris after the manifest concluded and stayed in one of Kate’s friend’s apartments for the night before getting a ride back to Montargis in the morning.

Jeremy Clement is a big spokesperson for the alliance jaune and someone I’d followed online at home for quite a while now. He picked us up and drove us back to Timothee’s house the next morning. We stopped for lunch at a burger king before parting ways and met his family. We had a nice meal and Jeremy explained that he wanted to bring a number of people and independent reporters and come manifest in America. At the time we floated the idea of coming back in a large group right after the elections and manifesting in Utah and Philadelphia. I later realized there were a few flaws in this plan, the first being that leaving the country in a large group could be difficult. Recently a large group of German yellow vests had attempted to take the train to join the protests but were denied entry to the country despite their freedom of travel. Secondly, I figured fundraising may take a little while. Lastly it would also take time to coordinate the events, so we put that on the back burner.

The next day Jeremy, Kate and Fred took us to Kate’s home in eastern France where we had events planned for the next two days. It took an entire day to get out there and I saw my first glimpses of the French countryside. We spent the night talking to her young children who were incredibly aware of what was going on in their country. Her 12 year old wished he was old enough to go to manifests, and her young daughter was very happy the adults were doing the things they were. We all took some photos and had dinner before catching up on some much needed sleep.

The following day started with us going to have breakfast at a GJ camp in Eastern France. We had bread and coffee and socialized a bit before we all went to “court watch” at the nearby tribunal. In France there are cameras everywhere, especially on the highway. Most overpasses have 20 cameras attached to them that I’m told can tell if people have their seat belts off. Likewise there are speed cameras everywhere that tag your speed and mail you tickets for violations. Many people during manifest were given summons for setting the machines on fire. I was told that they weren’t arrested, but their identity was discovered from the camera footage. In France I was told often times people will not have access to a lawyer so they will show support at their hearings like some do here in America. There are many cases in France where people are arrested for simply wearing a vest. They are then held without bail for several days, and arraigned without a lawyer. We were explained that the French are supposed to have lots of rights, but just like in America it seemed is if they were all being blatantly ignored.

From here we went to do two social gatherings that would be covered by several press outlets. First in a nearby park and then at a round point close by I observed another thing that seemed to repeat itself throughout my trip. It seemed that at least once a week the small local groups would meet for food and hold organized discussions. At times they would debate ideas, or talk strategy, and all was done civilly. At the first location we had a picnic and then everyone listened to Francis Lelanne play some music for all the children. He then talked to the group a bit on some of his ideas and everyone talked for a while. The second location was much more like a debate. As Francis and a Woman took turns exchanging sentiments I asked someone what the discussion was about.

A person explained to me that many in France didn’t want to vote at all anymore. Many felt that no matter who they voted for it would be nothing but enabling the same system to continue. Some felt that no list could ever represent all of France and wanted it all to stop so something new could flourish. Others believed in the model established by the alliance jaune. They felt that if there were many avenues to get where they want to be, then try all of them. They believed that the fact that alliance jaune was made up of regular people who wished to do nothing other than be transparent and speak FOR the people by using RIC, that it could work. The two were essentially having a televised discussion about both points. I spoke a bit to the cameraman here and he said that was the talk of the town. Both sides were making very valid points and many were split on the issue, it didn’t mean they fought each other, but they certainly disagreed. Everyone’s primary concern was to not hurt the movement and continue manifests until things actually change. Afterwards the two still hugged and talked as friends and it was very clear to me that the way they are doing things here may have ample merit to attempt at home.

Fred drove us back the next morning and dropped Jeremy off in Montargis. Robert and I planned to part directions the next morning and we ended up staying in a hotel that night. Due to a tennis match in the city there was only one room we could find in a hotel that was having its opening night. After we checked in we had some food and wine in the courtyard and I met the owner. Previously she had been a very well known Broadway actress in France and shared some stories. I met another man who had been educated in France and told me a lot of interesting things about the history of France. Many of the people there were all part of a dog walking group in the area and as a fellow animal lover, spent much time sharing animal pictures with people.

The next day I took the train to Marseilles, and boy was it a stressful day. Because of the new automation it seemed that most people bought their train tickets at self service kiosk’s that did not accept cash. If you only had cash, there was one ticket office where 10 people assisted a line that stayed consistently about 100 people long. I waited about an hour to buy my ticket and got some lunch. When I went upstairs I went to see which gate my train came to because there was none on my ticket. By the time I actually found help with the matter my train had left. I was told that they don’t post the gate until 20 minutes prior to departure. I waited in the line for another hour and got a new ticket for a later train. I was afterwards grabbed by three police officers outside who said it was police control. I told them I was American and one who clearly wasn’t said he was too. They asked me many questions and finally let me go inside. After the four hour trip I arrived in Marseilles that night.

I met my friend Petit Jean in the train station who is a medic in Marche Blanche in southern France. He drove an old army Jeep that he told me was an original that had been restored. Before going to his house in Aubagne he drove me to a few sites in the city at night. We first stopped at the skate park by the beach where people usually socialized in the daytime. We next drove to a massive church that stood high on a hill overlooking the whole city. We took some pictures of the city at night and he shared some history with me. All through the city exist the same castle walls that did a long time ago. Historically Marseilles has never respected any authority and they always joke how typically castle walls were to keep invaders out, but here they were built to keep people in. Without those walls the residents here would have always been after the king.

That was a sentiment that was still echoed to this day and was best described by my friend Micah who I met later in the trip. He’d always say “we are not French, we are just Marseille”. Many in this area all had their own way of describing it, but they all rejected the rule of police, government, and more. Petit Jean and Micah had a specific project I will describe later that was aimed at eliminating the Red Cross because they take peoples money and don’t do what they say they do. During the week there were no police patrolling it seemed, nothing compared to Paris. The cities are the same size, and one seems like a war zone and the other seems to exist differently. I’m told that a million people live in Marseille and all things aside, live in peace.

We stopped for snacks on the way to Jean’s house where he lived with his cousin in the country. She made food for us and we talked for several hours about the yellow vests. Jean showed me all of the rounds he had retrieved as a medic that were being used by the police. They had rubber bullets, flash balls, and gas. Also he showed me a rubber bullet grenade that would detonate with TNT and launch 18 rubber bullets into a crowd of people. Him and his cousin explained how a lot of the police are not happy these rounds are being used on the protesters. Historically they had only been used in Marseilles to subdue violent armed criminals. In their city they have large cartels and the primary focus of the police there was in the past to deal with drugs coming into the country from Africa. Now, the police either disagree with the tactics or think its not harsh enough. The reasons the medics are able to operate as they do is because they are neutral, and many police officers are willing to let them work. The conversation that night really set the stage for the next two weeks where I had many of my most memorable experiences.

The next day was the manifest in Marseilles and I didn’t wear white, but helped the medics. I wore full camo and my yellow vest that said press in large letters on the back. Every Saturday the people would meet at the port in the city’s center and march through the city. There were so many people when we arrived, it was incredible. Jean on several accounts throughout the day was asked if he was a Nazi because of the flag on his medical kit. He explained that it was the flag of the French resistance in World War 2 and many people there often use that term at the wrong times. Incidents like that were a rarity though, everyone would sing in unison for hours as they marched through the city.

Unlike Paris the entire way manifests went was a bit different. Here, the police will block the side streets but generally let the people march while attempting to control where they go. There are many pacifists here and they make a sort of game out of their marches. They will go back and forth up all the hills in the city forcing the officers to run in the heat with their equipment so they become tired and less combative. On this occasion however it was a special day, for 6 months they had been trying to manifest inside the train station but would often be gassed before they could get inside. This week we all hid our vests and took so many routes there that the police could not stop our entry into the building. The goal was to march long enough to disrupt the trains departures long enough that it costs the train company money. Inside we marched and sang our songs while most of the people who were there cheered and filmed.

It was in here where I had my second encounter with the police. As the large force of officers ran inside I had put my helmet on and was wearing a respirator in case gas was used. The officers grabbed me and pushed me against a wall and demanded I remove the headgear. I complied and then was ordered to give my backpack which I also did. I told them I was an American journalist and they shut my camera off and returned only that and my bag. Immediately afterwards the officers charged a group of protesters and beat them with their night sticks. Petit Jean was over helping the victim so I snuck outside and smoked a cigarette with the crowd while he worked. I met a woman outside with an Anonymous mask on and we both got excited about meeting people from the collective in different countries. We took pictures and eventually Jean came outside. He told me the officers said they would return my items after the manifest, but after many many attempts they never did.

From here we all dispersed, and I walked with Jean to a large shopping area where there was supposed to be another manifest. My new anon friend and I went inside to buy drinks for everyone and were hassled by security going in, and police exiting. We stood across the streets with the medics as a large group of officers beat one man and took him to jail. From here we walked back to the place where we began with my new anonymous friends. We talked a lot on the way there, and ate food before parting ways. Jean and I went then to Provence where a local GJ center was having a 6 month birthday party for the Yellow Jackets. There was food, drinks, music, and films. I bought a Yellow Vest calendar someone was selling copies of here to raise money for legal aid for their jailed comrades. After a lot of socializing we headed home, ate, and got some rest.

The next morning we went to a barbecue at the round point in that area where GJ 13 had their camp set up. Everyone sang and danced after they all ate together. This was a family event where all the kids played together and the adults played yard games. It was truly a sight to see. Many times throughout my trip it was emphasized to me how important it was to have humor and music. The premise behind both is that it continually puts more good back into the movement. Jean explained to me the Marianne women who sang songs. He talked about how there are a lot of women in the movement and they are an element of strength to everyone. I spoke to many who also talked about how having the support of the younger generations was very important. Everyone was very concerned about their future and preserving the planet for generations to come. Having all of the music about the yellow vests made it easier for the younger people to know what was going on, and engaged them in a way that was safer than what adults did.

During the week I stayed with Jean and our friend Micha came over many times. The next weekend we were supposed to go to Brussels, Belgium but encountered issues. During the week we talked a lot about the idea of Yellow Medics. Outside of the protests the medics want to be able to provide free social services to the homeless, elderly, and others in place of the corrupt agencies they have there. I spoke to him about my ideas of ways to get rid of the U.N. and replace it with something thats better and uncorrupted. The long term goal was to actually open up clinics that could further these ends. This is something that spoke so true to my heart that I have chosen to stay in touch with these guys and work on many things with them moving forward.

We also had a lot of great discussions about independence. In many people’s eyes here Marseilles was just Marseilles, not France. They will never respect the authority of the government and many see the quickest way to be free from government in any regard was to build something of your own to replace it. Regarding Red Cross and Corporate healthcare the Yellow Medic clinics were the ideal alternative. Many here loved the RIC too as they were simply tired of the government and its corruption. They felt if they could just worry about their own city independently many things would be better. I also learned in depth how the medics operate. They wear white symbolizing neutrality so they can maintain their arrangement with police to treat the injured. If they want to express their opinion and protest they manifest in yellow or black. Typically the yellow vests are the pacifists and the black blocks take additional steps. The black blocks and yellow vests do not seem to fight each other from what I observed, and most yellow vests in the south showed appreciation for what the black block’s do. The medics stay neutral towards everyone and off to the side and only have the focus of treating injuries.

The next manifest in Marseilles was also amazing, in part because it seemed like I knew so many people in the city at this point. Our march was led by a large group of drummers and I spent a good portion of time dancing and filming on the front lines. This time I was wearing the medic vest which was white and was left alone by the police the whole time. I did not see any violence at this event, but at one point the police did corral a large group of protesters into an alley and check everyone’s ID. I was able to help treat a woman who had an epileptic seizure at one point during this manifest as the responder had to call an ambulance. I had such a good time standing with Marseilles this day and I’ll never forget.

Afterwards we drove to the Airport to go to Belgium, but due to a crazy rule we were unable to go. Jean was fine, but Micah and I who bought our tickets days earlier hadn’t checked in online 48 hours before so they demanded more money. Nowhere on any of their emails did it say this was the policy, but neither of us could afford the fees they were asking so we stayed behind. I spent a few days in the city with Mica while Jean went to the other manifest. We took a bus to his apartment first to drop off my bags, and then headed to go buy some pot as both of us were incredibly stressed out and worried for Jean’s safety alone in Belgium.

On the walk across the city he explained to me about how the area we were going to was very dangerous. In America we have lots of smaller gangs, but here there were basically just a few large mafia’s. One was as he put it, a pickpocket cartel, and the other was an Islamic religious mafia. They all lived in a big area that resembled a New York City housing project. They stayed in business by paying off the officers in drugs and cash, and instead of their operation being stopped the officers instead focus only on their customers and competition. All of the weed, hashish, and other drugs come in from Africa and if you want to grow your own pot it is incredibly risky to do in large French cities. The drug market is essentially controlled by this cartel, and inside it was obvious. They had look outs on every corner and I was not even allowed inside. I stayed in the street where I could be seen from a distance. I was later told that it was more dangerous for me there than at manifests as I could meet a grim fate going there alone. Needless to say, nothing bad actually did happen and we returned home safely. We smoked a couple joints and watched the old 1984 movie from the 1950’s and got some sleep.

The next day was a slow day as we did laundry and picked up the house a bit. We went to Petit Jeans house and had lunch and retrieved some of my items and talked a while. The next day we took a tour of the city and walked along the beach a bit. My friend told me how he thinks things may get a lot worse before they get better. I had heard similar thoughts to his from many throughout my trip. Sooner or later many had established they would ditch their pacifist nature if something did not change. Nobody in France had any intentions of quitting until things change, and more were starting to view things differently. He explained how less people wear the vest now but instead wear arm bands. More people are becoming black block’s because they are fed up with not being heard. In this one persons opinion it could easily become a war of people versus the establishment.

We talked too about how the same elites control all of our countries. The central banks control everyone’s currency and they buy all the politicians. Here it was explained that people of any political stance share a common understanding that all the politicians screw everyone. They spend as much time debating opinions as we do, but when it comes time to fight they stand strong because the same people screw everyone. We talked about how much the French government spies on citizens and how there is almost nothing online they don’t spy on. Their government bought the codes to Discord and can see literally everything, Facebook is infiltrated, and many Telegram groups are too. The only safe interaction from spying is direct messages on Telegram as he put it. He explained how he didn’t know what will cause it, or when, but if one looks at history then we are following a pattern. These are the types of protests that lead to things like the French and American revolutions, and on this course there’s a lot that might or might not happen. They are marching into the unknown as he put it, and with so many pacifists they commit to non-violence because preserving the movement is integral. As long as there are so many pacifists it would stay that way, they vote on all decisions democratically. If the tides turned the way he saw it, things could become a lot different there and many throughout France seemed to be thinking this way as they grew more frustrated.

After our talk by the water we attended a general assembly meeting in the city. These occurred among all the groups in the cities of France, and there was always the time taken to discuss things in real life. One man here said the general assemblies are key because everyone must take time to actually talk to each other and listen, but also in the real world as social media will never allow the growth that meetings like these do. They talked for quite a while and ate food before we walked to the bus. On the walk some members from the meeting talked about how frustrated many were with the election. She explained how every time the politicians send people to the cities with envelopes of cash to buy votes. Without fail, every election the people they wanted to win always lost. We passed dozens sleeping on the street and remarked how that was the true violence of it all. The system in each country serves one interest and that is preserving itself. No officials serve the interest of the people, the economy only allows a small few to gain immense wealth while most struggle, we pollute our planet when we possess the ability not to, and medicine these days is closer to poison. We shared so many of the same problems in both our countries but shared hope because we knew as long as we don’t quit something has to give eventually. That’s their number 1 rule, never lose hope.

Eventually Petit Jean returned from Belgium and we spent a few days at his house before I flew home. We had another round point meeting in the city on my last night and talked to more people on a lot of these same topics. Jean was gearing up for his medic march on Saturday where he planned to march from Marseilles to Paris. His plan to protest the police violence was to embark on this march and ideally pick up as many people along the way as he could. I’ve been following his journey since I’ve gotten back. I’ve also begun to try and translate this experience into something we can all make use of at home. This last section will conclude with many of my observations and some ideas I had upon leaving France.

The biggest thing I noticed was how few people actually spent any time watching TV in France compared to the amount that do here. I think that if we can encourage more people to turn off the TV it would absolutely prove valuable, but likewise impossible. The same goes for social media, most of their organizing seems to be done through their general assemblies in person. The regular face-to-face interaction also appeared to make a significant difference. I believe it will be necessary to form groups in each city as well as each state. In those groups they can post fliers and begin organizing off the internet. This is a project many can have fun with, and engage in some fun with their local groups at same time.

If we don’t do something soon we will become like France also. The cameras and heavily armed government looming over everyone is nothing short of the same tyranny experienced in 1776-1789. It will prove useful to focus directly on waking people up to the madness, and also perfect a system to counteract division and propaganda. I have since created a hypothetical model for people to work with me on and test. The French seem to debate ideas socially and it benefits them much. To get to this same point I believe we will need to take baby steps and a solid plan. We should be able to disagree and talk to it without fighting, but the issue exists everywhere. The sooner we figure out a solution to this that encourages more communication is the sooner we as a society grow stronger.

Above anything else, we all need the RIC. Referendums and initiatives initiated by the citizens to create or remove laws. In this capacity, the people are their own branch of government that holds more power than any other branch. Whether government is changed, fixed, abolished, etc. this one thing will be the key to it in my eyes. We can implement it so many different ways I can conceive. No matter how things are set up when this is over, the RIC will give the citizens all their power back.

Throughout my whole trip in France I noticed many things it seemed people were in complete agreement on. Often people would write on their vests all the causes they were standing for. On that list were a few items like save the environment, stop polluting, save our kids, and the RIC. The beauty of the RIC is it is something each country can do even if their governments are set up differently, as well as it is something the entire world can also utilize to make global decisions. At the same time whether used on a small scale or a large scale, there are many ways this could be implemented. The biggest split I ever saw related to the RIC wasn’t that the people needed this but how do we actually do it? We met many people in Paris talking on different methods of implementation and many are thinking on this. It appeared that the ultimate goal is to devise several methods of implementing the concept and allowing the people to decide democratically. Similar to us here in America it seemed all people accepted the weight of the corruption within our system, the phenomena of the same issues existing worldwide, and that citizens need their power returned. Because of this it seemed that despite seeing different ways to implement the RIC, everyone still could agree that it is a perfect check and balance on most all things. There is no doubt in my mind that to get RIC implemented here we will have to work through the same viewpoints they do: direct democracy vs. representative democracy, no government vs. fix what we have, or no rulers vs. administrators. It seemed because the people there have maintained a successful platform to debate ideas they don’t have to spend as much time convincing people to come to the table, but instead can actually work together and blend thoughts to come up with viable options. In the near future I will be writing up something on the RIC where I’ve established a few different ways we could implement this here so Americans could even vote on a direction we wish to take together.

Medics are very necessary to call for action because they make protesters feel safe. It will be important to establish a medic network prior to any big actions. Medics should be capable of committing to complete neutrality so they are able to operate safely at manifest. These individuals could enact networks in cities to provide free care to the elderly, veterans, or the homeless. The same medics in France talked to me about goals to send teams to South America and Palestine to provide free aid to the injured. Many times it was proposed to me how many organizations have money donated to them and barely do anything to help after a natural disaster, or catastrophe. Whether we pay them of our own accord or through taxes we are more fueling corruption than we are actually helping at this point. These guys showed me a vision worthy of noting heavily in this piece. If there was a global network of medics in every city around the world there would be a true force of light that could respond to nearly everything. The way it was put is they don’t want to be paid for their work, they just do it because someone must. With ideas like these someone always needs to “just try” because its the only way to know if it will work. Just like the alliance jaune in Paris, they too talked about unequivocal transparency.

Through talking to them I came up with my own ideas, the first would be to bite back towards the U.N. and how their agendas actually cause global issues and don’t solve them. When we get into talk about getting rid of the U.N. I naturally start thinking about how do we create something that would replace it? With a few networks of citizens around the globe this could easily be done. The Yellow Medic network would first and foremost have medical and rescue teams that would work for no wages and run off donations. These guys can operate nearly everywhere and help preserve life during extreme conflicts. Secondly there could be a Yellow Peace Core that could also operate globally to maintain peace between nations. In another article I have begun working on a hypothetical method to reduce division and fight propaganda. Tentatively calling this the unity doctrine, I hope this can be improved and tested so it can become a model used in this global peace network. This too could be transparent and operate with volunteers and donations. Thirdly, with global RIC, the replacement network would never hold power over anyone’s sovereignty. This would deliver a method of decision making which put citizens of the globe in charge of what goes on without any globalism or NWO.

The only other thought I had after this was that I think a lot of the things we divide over are because we are still forced to choose between options given TO us. A viable solution could be to come together and reject all their options and create our own. By using the RIC we have a means to democratically decide on literally anything. We can create our own environmental plan, immigration, healthcare, business law, housing, and so much more. If we as a collective can create something new we all are satisfied with, we can demand it as one unified group. No more fighting each other over what big brother feeds us, I dream of teamwork…somehow. I know not how we will all get there, but after going to France I know we can do it. I’ll never lose hope or give up, not now…we’ve come too far. I hope we can all begin to start thinking of how to take all our energy and passion and turn it into big boots on ground activism that everyone can take part in!

The best lesson I really got while here is that independence is much more than just saying I don’t respect your authority. Independence requires work both in the short and long term’s. Much of that work is required so that the people can create a mechanism to solve issues and keep society going WITHOUT the government or corporations being involved. The Yellow Medics seek independence from The Red Cross by building an alternative that is not only better, but free of corruption. This practice can be replicated for nearly anything, and as it was put to me if is far easier to claim true independence when the people are equipped to do everything themselves if need be. There’s no cure all in this idea, I say it will take work because even though a good compromise will bring everyone to the table they still must fight. We fight against an enemy with more money than most of us could dream of. Whether its the pharmaceutical companies, big oil, government, or big tech, they will always have more resources than the people and stop them from doing just this. When we start creating new things that work for everyone I believe we can put a damper on division. We must absolutely all accept when we disagree, but in a process of creating something new disagreement can be critical thinking. We can give ourselves the ability to weigh all sides and options fairly and do what is actually best for everyone. We may all not get 100% of what we wanted, but things will surely be much better. In the face of any issue we can start to move towards creating something new by the people, with the people, for the people. In this manner we can spend time working together more, and fighting less. All in all, I am sure I still have plenty more from this trip I could write on and surely I will. For now, I’m going to consider this all for now and hope many enjoyed this. I’m leaving myself available to do live interviews as needed moving forward. Knowledge is free and I would love nothing more than to share my experience with many.
– Adam Rice

FOOTAGE FROM THE 2 MANIFESTS I ATTENDED IN MARSEILLES

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

 

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

 

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

 

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

 

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

 

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

 

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

 

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

 

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

 

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

 

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

 

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

 

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

 

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

 

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

 

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

 

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

 

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Help us keep this publication free. Consider supporting it with a donation. Thank you

Adam Rice’s Message from France

Gilets Jaunes coming to America

Adam- So here is a basic text update for what has been seen so far:

We attended manifest in Paris this past Saturday. We had a late start to our day and missed the first initial march and caught the tail end of it. When I arrived we saw a street closed off by a massive police presence and many gilets jaunes dancing in the street to bob Marley surrounded by cops. Eventually the police forced everyone out so we moved to La Place De Republique. When we arrived there was a massive rave occurring in the square aside the protesting revolutionaries. Shortly after arriving we began to march.

At one point we stoped to take pictures with supporting locals and our american flag until BOOM!! From behind us there again was a large squad of CRS firing flash bangs at the backs of the marching citizens. It was when the third explosion occurred only feet from our persons that we ran. I could see the explosion it was so close. We took a corner and followed others running for cover and ultimately looped back to find the crowd.

We found shortly after that the CRS had cordoned off the street and were not letting people through. Several officers were picking fights with senior citizens, and another was kicking chairs over at a restaurant where uninvolved citizens were eating. As they persisted we grabbed our flag and faced these jerks. We stood tall and proud as more french gilets jaunes followed and we chanted in french until they retreated. Soon after we sang a celebratory song and returned to the plaza.

When we got back to the plaza we almost couldnt get in as there were more cops than id seen in my life. We retrieved our friend kate by the monument and were again forced across the street by the mobs of police. A brief stare down occurred and the people again decided to not take this shit. We got our flag out again and stood strong in the street and spoke to many about our intentions as American Yellow Vests. There were definitely mixed opinions at first about our flag at first glance, but once explaining our intentions it was empowering to all involved. Speaking about liberating America from tyranny, equality, peace, ending wars, preserving nature, and more often led us to understand we are all after the same ends. We talked to many about how the French and Americans have typically been united in revolution and it was time to do it again.

So the crowd marched again towards the line of police who again retreated. It was only briefly after that everyone turned on a dime and ran away again. I still dont know what they were running from but as soon as it appeared no danger was present we made our third stand and faced the jerks. We spoke with a man from Poland briefly about global unity and decided we should finally retreat ourselves. As we left it appeared that the police succeeded in dispersing the crowd.

We spent the night in Paris and rode back with a big spokesperson here named Jeremy Clement. I had been following him since News2share interviewed him. We stopped for lunch and discussed doing our own interview this week, as well as getting Yellow Vest from America on the TV here. I explained how I wanted to show the world that people in America do care about what is important, and we are ready to stand up. That we wished to share a message of unity, love, and courage. The most exciting part of this encounter was his offer to bring a group of their organizers here and French media in the beginning of June. We agreed it is no time to wait, and the world is very ill and only the people can/will fix this. Over the next few days I believe we will work out the details of this, and hopefully come June we will see the French standing with America in some meaningful places for returning power to the people, and R.I.C.! Once confirmed, I will be screaming this from the mountaintops. We are thinking of picking four locations for now: Denver, Utah, Twin Ports MN, The Statue Of Liberty, and our original capital: Philadelphia, PA. Locations will naturally be able to be worked out once all parties involved have more time to discuss, but the main point is WE INTEND TO BRING THE REVOLUTION HOME!

To conclude, the police here suck!!! There are way too many of them, and the government here is doing everything they can to suppress free speech. Everything is on camera, and it often feels like Nazi occupied Germany seeing the police presence here. The Gilets Jaunes never back down or give up, and seeing that first hand could not possibly be more empowering. We managed to stay safe and unharmed in the face of these events, but also realized pretty quickly it takes bravery to defy insurmountable odds.

Help us to keep this publication free by leaving a monetary tip. Thank you

No justice for Frances Gilets Jaunes

Warning **GRAPHIC**

Paris­­— The satirical weekly newspaper called Révélation du Canard Enchaîné (Revelation of the Chained Duck/Paper), leaked its finding on the corrupt justice system in France. The publication could not put a humorous spin on its findings.

It found that out of the 227 complaints filed by various injured Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vest) from police brutality, not one has succeeded going through the corrupt court system.

In fact, all the complainants are still waiting on any word that the proper authorities are investigating. Some of these complaints are several months old and could go back as far as the end of 2018.

Macron, Frances President gave the order back in December of 2018 to use any means necessary to disband the Yellow Vest movement in Paris. Since the order, the police brutality has escalated to the point anyone caught in the streets can be subjected to the police brutality. Civilians that are not involved in the Yellow Vest movement have been beaten and injured.

Some civilians involved in the Yellow Vest Movement have been so severely injured their lives will never be the same. Some of them are missing eyes, and carry life altering scars on their faces. Some have had to have their jaws surgically put back on them after police shot them in the face blowing it completely off.

The police brutality against the innocent civilians practicing their right to demonstrating in the streets is not only intolerable, but a symptom of the Wetiko or Ouroboros that is engulfing all of us in this New World Order.

Please help to keep this publication free by leaving a monetary tip. Thank you

This is our Resistance, we do not want to Fight, but we will Persevere! (action letter)

Police violence against the people of France has gone unchanged by its government for almost 6 months now. It has only escalated to the point of sever injuries to children, elderly, and anyone that is out in the street that day. The police have become so uncontrollable they are as bad as a pack of rabid dogs! One citizen (Juut Muijs) has put together an action letter for everone to send to authorities to make this violence stop!

Date of sending:
Country you live in:
 
Dear personnel reading this,
 
I, (your full name), want you to know that I am part of the people, and I want to tell you that we, the people, are very pissed off.
This is also an understatement. Understand that.
 
I want to bring something to your attention. I am contacting you regarding an urgent matter happening in France, Europe. Something that affects us all.
 
We want you to speak for all of us and urge France to stop the police violence against the people protesting in France. And to reinstate the freedom of press.
 
We ask you to do everything in your power to make this happen. And we want you to understand that we condemn this and ask for this in every and for every country, against every human who is part of us, the people.
 
From now on I will be heard. I will not accept the violence anymore.
 
I will Resist, fight and persevere in what I can do to stop this violence against the people. Your silence tells us, the people, that when the French people want to protest for something that we all believe in to be “liberté, égalité, fraternité”, that if they are stopped in doing that, we can also not do that anymore.
 
The protests in France are “allowed” but the police stops the people from protesting by attacking them violently and breaking up the protests, way outside the agreed times.
 
I say agreed because it is our basic right to protest and we shouldn’t even be asking permission.
 
We should be organizing it all, together.
 
Furthermore it is very important for us, the people, that we can be aware of what is happening.
 
In a democracy the people can see, hear, know what governments, institutions, police, anything working for the public, the people, is exactly doing. And more importantly how that all is being done.

In France the police is blocking cameras, taking away cameras, beating up press people, the mainstream media worldwide is silent about the events happening in France.
 
This goes against every little detail of what journalism is about. The freedom of press is being violently attacked.
 
You should be well aware of this because these are basic principles of any democracy and human rights. And you do tell us that this, a democracy, is what we are living in? Or are we mistaken? Is that not what you are working for?
 
So, please, we, the people, urge you to make sure France stops, not only because France is attacking our people and therefore us, but also because we feel that you agree to what is happening in France, because you do nothing about it, and that makes us all feel unsafe.
 
This is our Resistance.
We do not want to Fight.
But we will Persevere!
 
Kind regards,

(your name)

Send to:

European Union

European Parliament
 
klaus.welle@ep.europa.eu, TO-Dir@europarl.europa.eu, LINC.information@europarl.europa.eu, dgtrad.secretariat@europarl.europa.eu, fins-dirgenerale@europarl.europa.eu

Members:

A
asim.ademov@europarl.europa.eu, isabella.adinolfi@europarl.europa.eu, marco.affronte@europarl.europa.eu, laura.agea@europarl.europa.eu, johnstuart.agnew@europarl.europa.eu, claraeugenia.aguileragarcia@europarl.europa.eu, daniela.aiuto@europarl.europa.eu, tim.aker@europarl.europa.eu, marina.albiol@europarl.europa.eu, nedzhmi.ali@europarl.europa.eu, michele.alliot-marie@europarl.europa.eu, lucy.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, martina.anderson@europarl.europa.eu, max.andersson@europarl.europa.eu, eric.andrieu@europarl.europa.eu, info@laimaandrikiene.lt, pedronidavide@libero.it, nikos.androulakis@europarl.europa.eu, gerolf.annemans@europarl.europa.eu, maria.arena@europarl.europa.eu, pascal.arimont@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.arnautu@europarl.europa.eu, jonathan.arnott@europarl.europa.eu, jean.arthuis@europarl.europa.eu, richard.ashworth@europarl.europa.eu, francisco.assis@europarl.europa.eu, janice.atkinson@europarl.europa.eu, margrete.auken@europarl.europa.eu, petras.austrevicius@europarl.europa.eu, ines.ayalasender@europarl.europa.eu, pilar.ayuso@europarl.europa.eu

B
hans.vanbaalen@europarl.europa.eu, georges.bach@europarl.europa.eu, guillaume.balas@europarl.europa.eu, zigmantas.balcytis@europarl.europa.eu, zoltan.balczo@europarl.europa.eu, nikolay.barekov@europarl.europa.eu, amjad.bashir@europarl.europa.eu, gerard.batten@europarl.europa.eu, nicolas.bay@europarl.europa.eu, hugues.bayet@europarl.europa.eu, catherine.bearder@europarl.europa.eu, beatriz.becerra@europarl.europa.eu, heinzk.becker@europarl.europa.eu, tiziana.beghin@europarl.europa.eu, bastiaan.belder@europarl.europa.eu, ivo.belet@europarl.europa.eu, bendt.bendtsen@europarl.europa.eu, brando.benifei@europarl.europa.eu, xabier.benitoziluaga@europarl.europa.eu, monika.benova@europarl.europa.eu, pervenche.beres@europarl.europa.eu, joelle.bergeron@europarl.europa.eu, goffredo.bettini@europarl.europa.eu, izaskun.bilbaobarandica@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.bilde@europarl.europa.eu, mara.bizzotto@europarl.europa.eu, malin.bjork@europarl.europa.eu, jose.blancolopez@europarl.europa.eu, vilija.blinkeviciute@europarl.europa.eu, andrea.bocskor@europarl.europa.eu, reimer.boege@europarl.europa.eu, franc.bogovic@europarl.europa.eu, simona.bonafe@europarl.europa.eu, michal.boni@europarl.europa.eu, mario.borghezio@europarl.europa.eu, david.borrelli@europarl.europa.eu, biljana.borzan@europarl.europa.eu, victor.bostinaru@europarl.europa.eu, louise.bours@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.boutonnet@europarl.europa.eu, jose.bove@europarl.europa.eu, lynn.boylan@europarl.europa.eu, paul.brannen@europarl.europa.eu, mercedes.bresso@europarl.europa.eu, renata.briano@europarl.europa.eu, steeve.briois@europarl.europa.eu, elmar.brok@europarl.europa.eu, klaus.buchner@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.buda@europarl.europa.eu, udo.bullmann@europarl.europa.eu, jonathan.bullock@europarl.europa.eu, cristiansilviu.busoi@europarl.europa.eu, reinhard.buetikofer@europarl.europa.eu, jerzy.buzek@europarl.europa.eu

C
soledad.cabezonruiz@europarl.europa.eu, alain.cadec@europarl.europa.eu, enrique.calvetchambon@europarl.europa.eu, wim.vandecamp@europarl.europa.eu, david.campbellbannerman@europarl.europa.eu, nicola.caputo@europarl.europa.eu, matt.carthy@europarl.europa.eu, james.carver@europarl.europa.eu, david.casa@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.caspary@europarl.europa.eu, fabiomassimo.castaldo@europarl.europa.eu, pilar.delcastillo@europarl.europa.eu, jean-marie.cavada@europarl.europa.eu, lorenzo.cesa@europarl.europa.eu, dita.charanzova@europarl.europa.eu, aymeric.chauprade@europarl.europa.eu, nessa.childers@europarl.europa.eu, caterina.chinnici@europarl.europa.eu, nikolaos.chountis@europarl.europa.eu, ole.christensen@europarl.europa.eu, lefteris.christoforou@europarl.europa.eu, kostas.chrysogonos@europarl.europa.eu, salvatore.cicu@europarl.europa.eu, angelo.ciocca@europarl.europa.eu, alberto.cirio@europarl.europa.eu, deirdre.clune@europarl.europa.eu, david.coburn@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.coelho@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.cofferati@europarl.europa.eu, birgit.collin-langen@europarl.europa.eu, jane.collins@europarl.europa.eu, jacques.colombier@europarl.europa.eu, lara.comi@europarl.europa.eu, annamaria.corazzabildt@europarl.europa.eu, richard.corbett@europarl.europa.eu, Thierry.Cornillet@europarl.europa.eu, ignazio.corrao@europarl.europa.eu, silvia.costa@europarl.europa.eu, javier.cousopermuy@europarl.europa.eu, andrea.cozzolino@europarl.europa.eu, michael.cramer@europarl.europa.eu, andi.cristea@europarl.europa.eu, brian.crowley@europarl.europa.eu, pal.csaky@europarl.europa.eu, ryszard.czarnecki@europarl.europa.eu, edward.czesak@europarl.europa.eu

D
peter.vandalen@europarl.europa.eu, miriam.dalli@europarl.europa.eu, daniel.dalton@europarl.europa.eu, jakop.dalunde@europarl.europa.eu, rosa.damato@europarl.europa.eu, seb.dance@europarl.europa.eu, office@sebdance.co.uk, arnaud.danjean@europarl.europa.eu, nicola.danti@europarl.europa.eu, william.dartmouth@europarl.europa.eu, rachida.dati@europarl.europa.eu, paolo.decastro@europarl.europa.eu, angelique.delahaye@europarl.europa.eu, andor.deli@europarl.europa.eu, karima.delli@europarl.europa.eu, mady.delvaux-stehres@europarl.europa.eu, mark.demesmaeker@europarl.europa.eu, isabella.demonte@europarl.europa.eu, gerard.deprez@europarl.europa.eu, albert.dess@europarl.europa.eu, michael.detjen@europarl.europa.eu, tamas.deutsch@europarl.europa.eu, nirj.deva@europarl.europa.eu, mircea.diaconu@europarl.europa.eu, agustin.diazdemera@europarl.europa.eu, geoffroy.didier@europarl.europa.eu, martina.dlabajova@europarl.europa.eu, diane.dodds@europarl.europa.eu, jorn.dohrmann@europarl.europa.eu, herbert.dorfmann@europarl.europa.eu, mireille.dornano@europarl.europa.eu, damian.draghici@europarl.europa.eu, pascal.durand@europarl.europa.eu, angel.dzhambazki@europarl.europa.eu

E
lampros.fountoulis@europarl.europa.eu, ashley.fox@europarl.europa.eu, romeo.franz@europarl.europa.eu, eugen.freund@europarl.europa.eu, stefan.eck@europarl.europa.eu, christian.ehler@europarl.europa.eu, bas.eickhout@europarl.europa.eu, andre.elissen@europarl.europa.eu, frank.engel@europarl.europa.eu, linnea.engstrom@europarl.europa.eu, georgios.epitideios@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.erdos@europarl.europa.eu, cornelia.ernst@europarl.europa.eu, ismail.ertug@europarl.europa.eu, rosa.estaras@europarl.europa.eu, info.etheridgemep@gmail.com, Jill.evans@europarl.europa.eu, eleonora.evi@europarl.europa.eu

F
tanja.fajon@europarl.europa.eu, nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu, joseinacio.faria@europarl.europa.eu, fredrick.federley@europarl.europa.eu, markus.ferber@europarl.europa.eu, josemanuel.fernandes@europarl.europa.eu, jonas.fernandezalvarez@europarl.europa.eu, giuseppe.ferrandino@europarl.europa.eu, laura.ferrara@europarl.europa.eu, joao.ferreira@europarl.europa.eu, raymond.finch@europarl.europa.eu, santiago.fisasayxela@europarl.europa.eu, raffaele.fitto@europarl.europa.eu, christofer.fjellner@europarl.europa.eu, john.flack@europarl.europa.eu, lukeming.flanagan@europarl.europa.eu, knut.fleckenstein@europarl.europa.eu, karl-heinz.florenz@europarl.europa.eu, eleonora.forenza@europarl.europa.eu, jacqueline.foster@europarl.europa.eu, anna.fotyga@europarl.europa.eu, doru.frunzulica@europarl.europa.eu

G
michael.gahler@europarl.europa.eu, kinga.gal@europarl.europa.eu, francesc.gambus@europarl.europa.eu, iratxe.garcia-perez@europarl.europa.eu, eider.gardiazabalrubial@europarl.europa.eu, elisabetta.gardini@europarl.europa.eu, enrico.gasbarra@europarl.europa.eu, evelyne.gebhardt@europarl.europa.eu, stefan.gehrold@europarl.europa.eu, jens.geier@europarl.europa.eu, elena.gentile@europarl.europa.eu, gerben-jan.gerbrandy@europarl.europa.eu, arne.gericke@europarl.europa.eu, lidiajoanna.geringerdeoedenberg@europarl.europa.eu, sven.giegold@europarl.europa.eu, adam.gierek@europarl.europa.eu, jens.gieseke@europarl.europa.eu, neena.gill@europarl.europa.eu, nathan.gill@europarl.europa.eu, teresa.gimenezbarbat@europarl.europa.eu, julie.girling@europarl.europa.eu, michela.giuffrida@europarl.europa.eu, karine.gloanecmaurin@europarl.europa.eu, sylvie.goddyn@europarl.europa.eu, charles.goerens@europarl.europa.eu, bruno.gollnisch@europarl.europa.eu, anamaria.gomes@europarl.europa.eu, tania.gonzalezpenas@europarl.europa.eu, esteban.gonzalezpons@europarl.europa.eu, beata.gosiewska@europarl.europa.eu, marcel.degraaff@europarl.europa.eu, giorgos.grammatikakis@europarl.europa.eu, luis.degrandespascual@europarl.europa.eu, maria.grapini@europarl.europa.eu, ingeborg.graessle@europarl.europa.eu, karoline.graswander-hainz@europarl.europa.eu, igor.grazin@europarl.europa.eu, nathalie.griesbeck@europarl.europa.eu, theresa.griffin@europarl.europa.eu, iveta.grigule@europarl.europa.eu, francoise.grossetete@europarl.europa.eu, andrzej.grzyb@europarl.europa.eu, roberto.gualtieri@europarl.europa.eu, enrique.guerrerosalom@europarl.europa.eu, sylvie.guillaume@europarl.europa.eu, antanas.guoga@europarl.europa.eu, jytte.guteland@europarl.europa.eu, sergio.gutierrezprieto@europarl.europa.eu, andras.gyurk@europarl.europa.eu

H
jussi.halla-aho@europarl.europa.eu, thomas.haendel@europarl.europa.eu, dan@hannan.co.uk, christophe.hansen@europarl.europa.eu, marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu, rebecca.harms@europarl.europa.eu, martin.haeusling@europarl.europa.eu, heidi.hautala@europarl.europa.eu, brian.hayes@europarl.europa.eu, anja.hazekamp@europarl.europa.eu, anna.hedh@europarl.europa.eu, office@hansolafhenkel.de, esther.herranzgarcia@europarl.europa.eu, krzysztof.hetman@europarl.europa.eu, maria.heubuch@europarl.europa.eu, nadja.hirsch@europarl.europa.eu, czeslaw.hoc@europarl.europa.eu, iris.hoffmann@europarl.europa.eu, monika.hohlmeier@europarl.europa.eu, gunnar.hokmark@europarl.europa.eu, gyorgy.holvenyi@europarl.europa.eu, mike.hookem@europarl.europa.eu, brice.hortefeux@europarl.europa.eu, john.howarth@europarl.europa.eu, danuta.huebner@europarl.europa.eu, ian.hudghton@europarl.europa.eu, jan.huitema@europarl.europa.eu, filizhakaeva.hyusmenova@europarl.europa.eu

I
sophie.intveld@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.iturgaiz@europarl.europa.eu, catalin-sorin.ivan@europarl.europa.eu, robertjaroslaw.iwaszkiewicz@europarl.europa.eu

J
liisa.jaakonsaari@europarl.europa.eu, anneli.jaatteenmaki@europarl.europa.eu, yannick.jadot@europarl.europa.eu, peter.jahr@europarl.europa.eu, ivan.jakovcic@europarl.europa.eu, jean-francois.jalkh@europarl.europa.eu, diane.james@europarl.europa.eu, france.jamet@europarl.europa.eu, livia.jaroka@europarl.europa.eu, ramon.jaureguiatondo@europarl.europa.eu, benedek.javor@europarl.europa.eu, danuta.jazlowiecka@europarl.europa.eu, petr.jezek@europarl.europa.eu, teresa.jimenez-becerril@europarl.europa.eu, eva.joly@europarl.europa.eu, dennis.dejong@europarl.europa.eu, agnes.jongerius@europarl.europa.eu, marc.joulaud@europarl.europa.eu, marek.jurek@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.juvin@europarl.europa.eu

K
karin.kadenbach@europarl.europa.eu, eva.kaili@europarl.europa.eu, jaroslaw.kalinowski@europarl.europa.eu, sandra.kalniete@europarl.europa.eu, syed.kamall@europarl.europa.eu, petra.kammerevert@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.kappel@europarl.europa.eu, othmar.karas@europarl.europa.eu, rinaronja.kari@europarl.europa.eu, sajjad.karim@europarl.europa.eu, rikke-louise.karlsson@europarl.europa.eu, karol.karski@europarl.europa.eu, elsi.katainen@europarl.europa.eu, sylvia-yvonne.kaufmann@europarl.europa.eu, manolis.kefalogiannis@europarl.europa.eu, tunne.kelam@europarl.europa.eu, jan.keller@europarl.europa.eu, franziska.keller@europarl.europa.eu, sean.kelly@europarl.europa.eu, wajid.khan@europarl.europa.eu, jude.kirton-darling@europarl.europa.eu, wolf.klinz@europarl.europa.eu, slawomir.klosowski@europarl.europa.eu, dieter-lebrecht.koch@europarl.europa.eu, jeppe.kofod@europarl.europa.eu, jaromir.kohlicek@ep.europa.eu, arndt.kohn@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.koelmel@europarl.europa.eu, katerina.konecna@europarl.europa.eu, adam.kosa@europarl.europa.eu, dietmar.koester@europarl.europa.eu, stelios.kouloglou@europarl.europa.eu, peter.kouroumbashev@europarl.europa.eu, bela.kovacs@europarl.europa.eu, andrey.kovatchev@europarl.europa.eu, agnieszka.kozlowska-rajewicz@europarl.europa.eu, zdzislaw.krasnodebski-office@europarl.europa.eu, constanze.krehl@europarl.europa.eu, urszula.krupa@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.kudrycka@europarl.europa.eu, werner.kuhn@europarl.europa.eu, eduard.kukan@europarl.europa.eu, miapetra.kumpula-natri@europarl.europa.eu, kostadinka.kuneva@europarl.europa.eu, zbigniew.kuzmiuk@europarl.europa.eu, kashetu.kyenge@europarl.europa.eu, merja.kyllonen@europarl.europa.eu, miltiadis.kyrkos@europarl.europa.eu, georgios.kyrtsos@europarl.europa.eu, ilhan.kyuchyuk@europarl.europa.eu

L
Patricia.Lalonde@europarl.europa.eu, alain.lamassoure@europarl.europa.eu, jean.lambert@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.lamberts@europarl.europa.eu, danilooscar.lancini@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.lange@europarl.europa.eu, esther.delange@europarl.europa.eu, werner.langen@europarl.europa.eu, giovanni.lavia@europarl.europa.eu, jerome.lavrilleux@europarl.europa.eu, gilles.lebreton@europarl.europa.eu, christelle.lechevalier@europarl.europa.eu, ryszardantoni.legutko@europarl.europa.eu, patrick.lehyaric@europarl.europa.eu, jo.leinen@europarl.europa.eu, jeroen.lenaers@europarl.europa.eu, innocenzo.leontini@europarl.europa.eu, jean-marie.lepen@europarl.europa.eu, janusz.lewandowski@europarl.europa.eu, boguslaw.liberadzki@europarl.europa.eu, peter.liese@europarl.europa.eu, arne.lietz@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.lins@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.lochbihler@europarl.europa.eu, philippe.loiseau@europarl.europa.eu, morten.lokkegaard@europarl.europa.eu, veronica.lopefontagne@europarl.europa.eu, javi.lopez@europarl.europa.eu, juanfernando.lopezaguilar@europarl.europa.eu, paloma.lopez@europarl.europa.eu, antonio.lopezisturiz@europarl.europa.eu, sabine.loesing@europarl.europa.eu, bernd.lucke@europarl.europa.eu, olle.ludvigsson@europarl.europa.eu, elzbieta.lukacijewska@europarl.europa.eu, peter.lundgren@europarl.europa.eu, krystyna.lybacka@europarl.europa.eu

M
david.mcallister@europarl.europa.eu, emma.mcclarkin@europarl.europa.eu, mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu, anthea.mcintyre@europarl.europa.eu, monica.macovei@europarl.europa.eu, vana.maletic@europarl.europa.eu, svetoslav.malinov@europarl.europa.eu, curzio.maltese@europarl.europa.eu, andrejs.mamikins@europarl.europa.eu, blog@lukasmandl.eu, ramonanicole.manescu@europarl.europa.eu, vladimir.manka@europarl.europa.eu, thomas.mann@europarl.europa.eu, louis-joseph.manscour@europarl.europa.eu, florent.marcellesi@europarl.europa.eu, notis.marias@europarl.europa.eu, antonio.marinhoepinto@europarl.europa.eu, david.martin@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.martin@europarl.europa.eu, edouard.martin@europarl.europa.eu, fulvio.martusciello@europarl.europa.eu, michal.marusik@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.matera@europarl.europa.eu, marisa.matias@europarl.europa.eu, gabriel.mato@europarl.europa.eu, rupert.matthews@europarl.europa.eu, stefano.maullu@europarl.europa.eu, emmanuel.maurel@europarl.europa.eu, costas.mavrides@europarl.europa.eu, eva.maydell@europarl.europa.eu, georg.mayer@europarl.europa.eu, alex.mayer@europarl.europa.eu, valentinas.mazuronis@europarl.europa.eu, gesine.meissner@europarl.europa.eu, joelle.melin@europarl.europa.eu, susanne.melior@europarl.europa.eu, nuno.melo@europarl.europa.eu, morten.messerschmidt@europarl.europa.eu, tamas.meszerics@europarl.europa.eu, roberta.metsola@europarl.europa.eu, tilly.metz@europarl.europa.eu, joerg.meuthen@europarl.europa.eu, louis.michel@europarl.europa.eu, martina.michels@europarl.europa.eu, iskra.mihaylova@europarl.europa.eu, miroslav.mikolasik@europarl.europa.eu, francisco.millanmon@europarl.europa.eu, matthijs.vanmiltenburg@europarl.europa.eu, anne-marie.mineur@europarl.europa.eu, ana.miranda@europarl.europa.eu, Miroslavs.Mitrofanovs@europarl.europa.eu, marlene.mizzi@europarl.europa.eu, angelika.mlinar@europarl.europa.eu, nosheena.mobarik@europarl.europa.eu, giulia.moi@europarl.europa.eu, sorin.moisa@europarl.europa.eu, csaba.molnar@europarl.europa.eu, bernard.monot@europarl.europa.eu, claudia.monteirodeaguiar@europarl.europa.eu, sophie.montel@europarl.europa.eu, clare.moody@europarl.europa.eu, claude.moraes@europarl.europa.eu, nadine.morano@europarl.europa.eu, luigi.morgano@europarl.europa.eu, elisabeth.morinchartier@europarl.europa.eu, krisztina.morvai@europarl.europa.eu, alessia.mosca@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.mueller@europarl.europa.eu, siegfried.muresan@europarl.europa.eu, renaud.muselier@europarl.europa.eu, alessandra.mussolini@europarl.europa.eu

N
caroline.nagtegaal@europarl.europa.eu, jozsef.nagy@europarl.europa.eu, javier.nart@europarl.europa.eu, momchil.nekov@europarl.europa.eu, norbert.neuser@europarl.europa.eu, dan.nica@europarl.europa.eu, james.nicholson@europarl.europa.eu, norica.nicolai@europarl.europa.eu, angelika.niebler@europarl.europa.eu, ludek.niedermayer@europarl.europa.eu, peter.niedermueller@europarl.europa.eu, liadh.niriada@europarl.europa.eu, lambert.vannistelrooij@europarl.europa.eu, maria.noichl@europarl.europa.eu, andrey.novakov@europarl.europa.eu, paul.nuttall@europarl.europa.eu

O
franz.obermayr@europarl.europa.eu, patrick.oflynn@europarl.europa.eu, jan.olbrycht@europarl.europa.eu, younous.omarjee@europarl.europa.eu, stanislaw.ozog@europarl.europa.eu

P
maite.pagaza@europarl.europa.eu, rolandas.paksas@europarl.europa.eu, rory.palmer@europarl.europa.eu, pierantonio.panzeri@europarl.europa.eu, massimo.paolucci@europarl.europa.eu, demetris.papadakis@europarl.europa.eu, konstantinos.papadakis@europarl.europa.eu, dimitrios.papadimoulis@europarl.europa.eu, gilles.pargneaux@europarl.europa.eu, margot.parker@europarl.europa.eu, ioanmircea.pascu@europarl.europa.eu, aldo.patriciello@europarl.europa.eu, emilian.pavel@europarl.europa.eu, jiri.payne@europarl.europa.eu, piernicola.pedicini@europarl.europa.eu, vincent.peillon@europarl.europa.eu, alojz.peterle@europarl.europa.eu, mortenhelveg.petersen@europarl.europa.eu, marijana.petir@europarl.europa.eu, florian.philippot@europarl.europa.eu, giuseppina.picierno@europarl.europa.eu, tonino.picula@europarl.europa.eu, boleslaw.piecha@europarl.europa.eu, markus.pieper@europarl.europa.eu, sirpa.pietikainen@europarl.europa.eu, Joao.pimentalopes@europarl.europa.eu, miroslaw.piotrowski@europarl.europa.eu, kati.piri@europarl.europa.eu, georgi.pirinski@europarl.europa.eu, julia.pitera@europarl.europa.eu, marek.plura@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.poc@europarl.europa.eu, miroslav.poche@europarl.europa.eu, stanislav.polcak@europarl.europa.eu, maurice.ponga@europarl.europa.eu, razvan.popa@europarl.europa.eu, tomasz.poreba@europarl.europa.eu, jiri.pospisil@europarl.europa.eu, soraya.post@europarl.europa.eu, cristiandan.preda@europarl.europa.eu, marcus.pretzell@europarl.europa.eu, gabriele.preuss@europarl.europa.eu, john.procter@europarl.europa.eu, carolina.punset@europarl.europa.eu

Q
godelieve.quisthoudt-rowohl@europarl.europa.eu

R
emil.radev@europarl.europa.eu, jozo.rados@europarl.europa.eu, dennis.radtke@europarl.europa.eu, paulo.rangel@europarl.europa.eu, laurentiu.rebega@europarl.europa.eu, julia.reda@europarl.europa.eu, evelyn.regner@europarl.europa.eu, julia.reid@europarl.europa.eu, michel.reimon@europarl.europa.eu, terry.reintke@europarl.europa.eu, christine.revaultdallonnesBONNEFOY@europarl.europa.eu, sofia.ribeiro@europarl.europa.eu, frederique.ries@europarl.europa.eu, dominique.riquet@europarl.europa.eu, michele.rivasi@europarl.europa.eu, robert.rochefort@europarl.europa.eu, liliana.rodrigues@europarl.europa.eu, mariajoao.rodrigues@europarl.europa.eu, inma.rodriguezpinero@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.rodust@europarl.europa.eu, jens.rohde@europarl.europa.eu, claude.rolin@europarl.europa.eu, bronis.rope@europarl.europa.eu, dariusz.rosati@europarl.europa.eu, virginie.roziere@europarl.europa.eu, fernando.ruas@europarl.europa.eu, paul.ruebig@europarl.europa.eu, pirkko.ruohonen-lerner@europarl.europa.eu

S
karlis.sadurskis@europarl.europa.eu, tokia.saifi@europarl.europa.eu, sofia.sakorafa@europarl.europa.eu, joseignacio.salafranca@europarl.europa.eu, massimiliano.salini@europarl.europa.eu, mariadoloreslola.sanchezcaldentey@europarl.europa.eu, anne.sander@europarl.europa.eu, alfred.sant@europarl.europa.eu, manuel.dossantos@europarl.europa.eu, dacianaoctavia.sarbu@europarl.europa.eu, judith.sargentini@europarl.europa.eu, petri.sarvamaa@europarl.europa.eu, jacek.saryusz-wolski@europarl.europa.eu, david.sassoli@europarl.europa.eu, algirdas.saudargas@europarl.europa.eu, marietje.schaake@europarl.europa.eu, jean-luc.schaffhauser@europarl.europa.eu, christel.schaldemose@europarl.europa.eu, martin.schirdewan@europarl.europa.eu, elly.schlein@europarl.europa.eu, claudia.schmidt@europarl.europa.eu, helmut.scholz@europarl.europa.eu, gyorgy.schopflin@europarl.europa.eu, annie.schreijer-pierik@europarl.europa.eu, sven.schulze@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.schuster@europarl.europa.eu, andreas.schwab@europarl.europa.eu, molly.scottcato@europarl.europa.eu, giancarlo.scotta@europarl.europa.eu, olga.sehnalova@europarl.europa.eu, jasenko.selimovic@europarl.europa.eu, lidia.senra@europarl.europa.eu, remo.sernagiotto@europarl.europa.eu, ricardo.serraosantos@europarl.europa.eu, jill.seymour@europarl.europa.eu, czeslaw.siekierski@europarl.europa.eu, pedro.silvapereira@europarl.europa.eu, peter.simon@europarl.europa.eu, sion.simon@europarl.europa.eu, birgit.sippel@europarl.europa.eu, branislav.skripek@europarl.europa.eu, davor.skrlec@europarl.europa.eu, alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu, monika.smolkova@europarl.europa.eu, csaba.sogor@europarl.europa.eu, michaela.sojdrova@europarl.europa.eu, jordi.sole@europarl.europa.eu, igor.soltes@europarl.europa.eu, renate.sommer@europarl.europa.eu, martin.sonneborn@europarl.europa.eu, renato.soru@europarl.europa.eu, dobromir.sosnierz@europarl.europa.eu, barbara.spinelli@europarl.europa.eu, maria.spyraki@europarl.europa.eu, bart.staes@europarl.europa.eu, sergei.stanishev@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.starbatty@europarl.europa.eu, ivan.stefanec@europarl.europa.eu, jaromir.stetina@europarl.europa.eu, helga.stevens@europarl.europa.eu, theodordumitru.stolojan@europarl.europa.eu, olaf.stuger@europarl.europa.eu, dubravka.suica@europarl.europa.eu, richard.sulik@europarl.europa.eu, patricija.sulin@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.svoboda@europarl.europa.eu, kay.swinburne@europarl.europa.eu, neoklis.sylikiotis@europarl.europa.eu, eleftherios.synadinos@europarl.europa.eu, jozsef.szajer@europarl.europa.eu, tibor.szanyi@europarl.europa.eu, adam.szejnfeld@europarl.europa.eu

T
antonio.tajani@europarl.europa.eu, dario.tamburrano@europarl.europa.eu, claudiuciprian.tanasescu@europarl.europa.eu, paul.tang@europarl.europa.eu, charles.tannock@europarl.europa.eu, ana-claudia.tapardel@europarl.europa.eu, marc.tarabella@europarl.europa.eu, indrek.tarand@europarl.europa.eu, keith.taylor@europarl.europa.eu, pavel.telicka@europarl.europa.eu, josep-maria.terricabras@europarl.europa.eu, eleni.theocharous@europarl.europa.eu, isabelle.thomas@europarl.europa.eu, roza.thun@europarl.europa.eu, patrizia.toia@europarl.europa.eu, laszlo.tokes@europarl.europa.eu, ivica.tolic@europarl.europa.eu, valdemar.tomasevski@europarl.europa.eu, ruza.tomasic@europarl.europa.eu, romana.tomc@europarl.europa.eu, yana.toom@europarl.europa.eu, estefania.torresmartinez@europarl.europa.eu, nils.torvalds@europarl.europa.eu, evzen.tosenovsky@europarl.europa.eu, ulrike.trebesius@europarl.europa.eu, ramon.tremosa@europarl.europa.eu, mylene.troszczynski@europarl.europa.eu, helga.truepel@europarl.europa.eu, mihai.turcanu@europarl.europa.eu

U
kazimierzmichal.ujazdowski@europarl.europa.eu, istvan.ujhelyi@europarl.europa.eu, marita.ulvskog@europarl.europa.eu, traian.ungureanu@europarl.europa.eu, miguel.urbancrespo@europarl.europa.eu, ernest.urtasun@europarl.europa.eu, vladimir.urutchev@europarl.europa.eu, viktor.uspaskich@europarl.europa.eu

V
inese.vaidere@europarl.europa.eu, ivo.vajgl@europarl.europa.eu, ramonluis.valcarcel@europarl.europa.eu, adinaioana.valean@europarl.europa.eu, elena.valenciano@europarl.europa.eu, bodil.valero@europarl.europa.eu, marco.valli@europarl.europa.eu, angela.vallina@europarl.europa.eu, monika.vana@europarl.europa.eu, anneleen.vanbossuyt@europarl.europa.eu, kathleen.vanbrempt@europarl.europa.eu, tom.vandenkendelaere@europarl.europa.eu, geoffrey.vanorden@europarl.europa.eu, derek.vaughan@europarl.europa.eu, hilde.vautmans@europarl.europa.eu, mirja.vehkapera@europarl.europa.eu, marie-christine.vergiat@europarl.europa.eu, sabine.verheyen@europarl.europa.eu, guy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eu, miguel.viegas@europarl.europa.eu, marie-pierre.vieu@europarl.europa.eu, harald.vilimsky@europarl.europa.eu, daniele.viotti@europarl.europa.eu, henna.virkkunen@europarl.europa.eu, anders.vistisen@europarl.europa.eu, udo.voigt@europarl.europa.eu, axel.voss@europarl.europa.eu, elissavet.vozemberg@europarl.europa.eu

W
thomas.waitz@ep.europa.eu, jaroslaw.walesa@europarl.europa.eu, julie.ward@europarl.europa.eu, manfred.weber@europarl.europa.eu, renate.weber@europarl.europa.eu, josef.weidenholzer@europarl.europa.eu, martina.werner@europarl.europa.eu, kerstin.westphal@europarl.europa.eu, rainer.wieland@europarl.europa.eu, lieve.wierinck@europarl.europa.eu, cecilia.wikstrom@europarl.europa.eu, kristina.winberg@europarl.europa.eu, hermann.winkler@europarl.europa.eu, iuliu.winkler@europarl.europa.eu, babette.winter@europarl.europa.eu, jadwiga.wisniewska@europarl.europa.eu, tiemo.woelken@europarl.europa.eu, steven.woolfe@europarl.europa.eu

X

Y

Z
anna.zaborska@europarl.europa.eu, theodoros.zagorakis@europarl.europa.eu, jan.zahradil@europarl.europa.eu, boris.zala@europarl.europa.eu, francis.zammitdimech@europarl.europa.eu, marco.zanni@europarl.europa.eu, flavio.zanonato@europarl.europa.eu, sotirios.zarianopoulos@europarl.europa.eu, tomas.zdechovsky@europarl.europa.eu, tomas.zdechovsky@europarl.europa.eu, bogdan.zdrojewski@europarl.europa.eu, joachim.zeller@europarl.europa.eu, janusz.zemke@europarl.europa.eu, auke.zijlstra@europarl.europa.eu, roberts.zile@europarl.europa.eu, gabriele.zimmer@europarl.europa.eu, jana.zitnanska@europarl.europa.eu, kosma.zlotowski@europarl.europa.eu, mariagabriela.zoana@europarl.europa.eu, damiano.zoffoli@europarl.europa.eu, stanislawjozef.zoltek@europarl.europa.eu, carlos.zorrinho@europarl.europa.eu, zeljana.zovko@europarl.europa.eu, marco.zullo@europarl.europa.eu, milan.zver@europarl.europa.eu, tadeusz.zwiefka@europarl.europa.eu

The Commissioners:
frans-timmermans-contact@ec.europa.eu, federica.mogherini@ec.europa.eu, cab-ansip-web@ec.europa.eu, cab-sefcovic-web@ec.europa.eu, cab-dombrovskis-contact@ec.europa.eu, jyrki-katainen-contact@ec.europa.eu, guenther-oettinger-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-hahn-contacts@ec.europa.eu, cecilia-malmstrom-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-mimica-webpage@ec.europa.eu, cab-arias-canete-archives@ec.europa.eu, cab-karmenu-vella-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-andriukaitis-webpage@ec.europa.eu, dimitris.avramopoulos@ec.europa.eu, cab-thyssen@ec.europa.eu, cab-moscovici-webpage@ec.europa.eu, christos.stylianides@ec.europa.eu, phil.hogan@ec.europa.eu, matej.zakonjsek@ec.europa.eu, margaritis.schinas@ec.europa.eu, vera-jourova-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-navracsics-contact@ec.europa.eu, corina-cretu-contact@ec.europa.eu, margrethe-vestager-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-moedas-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-king-contact@ec.europa.eu, cab-gabriel-contact@ec.europa.eu

France

French embassies / consulates
cad.luanda-amb@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafr.argentine@gmail.com, cad.erevan-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, secretariat.vienne-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, presse.bakou-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, consulat.berlin-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cad.bruxelles-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafrance.cotonou@diplomatie.gouv.fr, information@ambafrance-bo.org, france@ambafrance-br.org, presse.sofia.amba@gmail.com, cad.ouagadougou-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, consulat.phnom-penh-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, politique@ambafrance-ca.org, admin-francais.bangui-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cad.moroni-ambassade@diplomatie.gouv.fr, ambafrance@cytanet.com.cy, cad.copenhague-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, info@ambafrance-nl.org, ambafrance.paramaribo@diplomatie.gouv.fr, mediatheque@institutfrancais.hr, institut@institutfrancais.hr, zagreb@alliance-francaise.hr, split@alliance-francaise.hr, rijeka@alliance-francaise.hr, osijek@alliance-francaise.hr, dubrovnik@alliance-francaise.hr, contact@ambafrance-si.org, ifs@institutfrance.si, ljubljana@businessfrance.fr, ljubljana@dgtresor.gouv.fr, secretariat-cg.milan-fslt@diplomatie.gouv.fr, cfvenise@yahoo.fr, giuliano.berti@studiolegaleberti.it, agenceconsulairegenes@gmail.com, consulatgenes@gmail.com, consulfrance.sion@gmail.com, agenceconsulairedefranceabale@gmail.com, lionel.lafargue@helvetia.ch, cad.luxembourgamba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, millerobert38@gmail.com, londres.douane@dgtresor.gouv.fr, presse.londres-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, pa-frarmament@ambafrance-uk.org, pa-frarmament@ambafrance-uk.org

Spain

Embassies/Consulates/Etc
emb.tirana@maec.es, agredate@oc.mde.es, roma@comercio.mineco.es, berlin@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria.de@mecd.es, berlin@comercio.mineco.es, emb.andorra@maec.es, cog.andorra@maec.es, consejeria.ad@mec.es, paris@mcx.es, constrab.paris@mtin.es, toulouse@meyss.es, emb.moscu@maec.es, emb.viena@maec.es, emb.viena@maec.es, emb.viena.sec@maec.es, viena@tourspain.es, viena@comercio.mineco.es, viena@tourspain.es, emb.baku@maec.es, emb.bruselas@maec.es, cog.bruselas@maec.es, emb.bruselas.ofc@maec.es, consejeriabelgica.be@educacion.gob.es, belgica@mitramiss.es, bruselas@comercio.mineco.es, bruselas@tourspain.es, consejeria.bruselas@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, secbru@cervantes.es, emb.moscu@maec.es, emb.sarajevo@maec.es, emb.sarajevo.sc@maec.es, emb.sofia.sc@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, emb.nicosia@maec.es, emb.SantaSede@maec.es, consulado@espana.hr, emb.copenhague@maec.es, emb.copenhague.info@maec.es, emb.copenhague.ofc@maec.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, openhague@tourspain.es, copenhague@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria.de@educacion.es, maria.bustos@policia.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, dinamarca@mitramiss.es, jussi.hakala@saastopankki.fi, paivi.makinen@aristo-invest.fi, ilkka@santapark.com, bratislava@comercio.mineco.es, agregaduria.sk@educacion.gob.es, aula.bratislava@cervantes.es, oficina@es-consulhon.sk, emb.liubliana@maec.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, cultvie@cervantes.es, info.liubliana@cervantes.es, sc.helsinki@maec.es, emb.helsinki@maec.es, helsinki@comercio.mineco.es, helsinki@tourspain.es, consejeria.de@educacion.es, jussi.hakala@saastopankki.fi, paivi.makinen@aristo-invest.fi, ilkka@santapark.com, helsinki@comercio.mineco.es, helsinki@tourspain.es, dinamarca@meyss.es, bordeaux@cervantes.es, agredpar@oc.mde.es, emb.paris@maec.es, paris@comercio.mineco.es, finances.ocde@hacienda.gob.es, paris@tourspain.es, emb.paris.ofc@maec.es, consejeria.fr@educacion.gob.es, reper.paris@minetad.es, paris@mapama.es, agredpar@oc.mde.es, paris@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, cenpar@cervantes.es, cenlyo@cervantes.es, espana.georgia@gmail.com, emb.atenas@maec.es, emb.atenas.info@maec.es, agredate@otenet.gr, atenas@comercio.mineco.es, cenate@cervantes.es, atenas@comercio.mineco.es, consejeria2.it@mecd.es, emb.sofia@maec.es, agredbud@oc.mde.es, emb.budapest@maec.es, buzon@embajadadeespana.hu, emb.dublin@maec.es, dublin@comercio.mineco.es, cendub@cervantes.es, asesoriadublin.ie@mecd.es, dublin@tourspain.es, consejeria.londres@mpr.es, constrab.londres@meyss.es, londres@magrama.es, agredlon@oc.mde.es, vhg@rtobin.com, agretel@barak.net.il, info@espana.is, agredosl@oc.mde.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, agredroma@oc.mde.es, roma@comercio.mineco.es, milan@comercio.mineco.es, emb.roma@maec.es, roma@mapama.es, consejeria.it@mecd.es, roma@comunicacion.presidencia.gob.es, italia@mitramiss.es, emb.roma@maec.es, emb.riga@maec.es, agredvar@oc.mde.es, markus.kolzoff@administral.li markus.kolzoff@advocatur.li, emb.luxemburgo@maec.es, emb.luxemburgo.info@maec.es, asabaterg@meyss.es, cog.amsterdam@maec.es, consuladoespana.aruba@hotmail.com, esconsul@xs4all.nl, viceconsul-h-spain@licoresmaduro.com, info@monchy.nl, emb.lahaya@maec.es, agredosl@oc.mde.es, agredvar@oc.mde.es, agregaduria.polonia@mir.es, emb.berna@maec.es, cog.zurich@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, estocolmo@comercio.mineco.es, estocolmo@tourspain.es, info.stockholm@cervantes.es, consulgot@gmail.com, spanish.consulate@holmbergs.cc, spanskakh@ametller.se, emb.ankara@maec.es, emb.ankara.inf@maec.es, cog.estambul@mae.es, estambul@comercio.mineco.es, emb.praga.info@maec.es, emb.astana@maec.es, emb.belgrado@maec.es, emb.riga@maec.es, emb.valletta@maec.es, emb.budapest@maec.es, emb.paris@maec.es, belgrado@comercio.mineco.es, emb.skopje@maec.es, cog.lisboa@maec.es, cog.oporto@maec.es, emb.roma@maec.es, emb.belgrado@maec.es, emb.estocolmo@maec.es, cog.zurich@maec.es, emb.londres.brexit@maec.es, brexitventanillaresidentes@maec.es, agredlon@oc.mde.es, emb.londres@maec.es

UK/Britain

contactus@amnesty.org, british.embassytirana@fco.gov.uk, press@britishembassy.at, public.brussels@fco.gov.uk, britemb@bih.net.ba, DLSarajevoBLOfficeProtect@fco.gov.uk, british.embassyzagreb@fco.gov.uk, Enquiry.Copenhagen@fco.gov.uk, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk, info.helsinki@fco.gov.uk, ukingermany@fco.gov.uk, Information.Athens@fco.gov.uk, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk, info@britishembassy.is, HolySee@fco.gov.uk, britishembassy.riga@fco.gov.uk, enquirieslux@fco.gov.uk, podgorica@fco.gov.uk, ukinnl@fco.gov.uk, UKinNorway@fco.gov.uk, info@britishembassy.pl, ppa.lisbon@fco.gov.uk, BritishEmbassy.Bucharest@fco.gov.uk, enquiriesukinrussia@fco.gov.uk, Media.Moscow@fco.gov.uk, Stockholm@fco.gov.uk, Belgrade.PPD@fco.gov.uk, info.consulate@fco.gov.uk, bratislava.consularenquiries@fco.gov.uk, info@british-embassy.si, UKinUkraine@fco.gov.uk

Brittish media
guardian.letters@theguardian.com, observer.letters@observer.co.uk, culture@theguardian.com, arts@theguardian.com, books@theguardian.com, financial@theguardian.com, cities@theguardian.com, money@theguardian.com, consumer.champions@theguardian.com, education@theguardian.com, rosie.swash@theguardian.com, alan.evans@theguardian.com, feast@theguardian.com, film@theguardian.com, g2@theguardian.com, international@theguardian.com, law.editors@theguardian.com, lifeandstyle@theguardian.com, media@theguardian.com, nq@theguardian.com, obituaries@theguardian.com, opinion@theguardian.com, pictures@theguardian.com, photocalls@theguardian.com, politics@theguardian.com, review@theguardian.com, science@theguardian.com, society@theguardian.com, space@theguardian.com, sport@theguardian.com, travel@theguardian.com, weekend@theguardian.com, cash@observer.co.uk, your.problems@observer.co.uk, food.monthly@observer.co.uk, observer.letters@observer.co.uk, magazine@observer.co.uk, review@observer.co.uk, sport@observer.co.uk, guardianfoundation@theguardianfoundation.org, vouchersubs@theguardian.com, homedelivery@theguardian.com, digitalpack@theguardian.com, gwsubs@theguardian.com, apac.help@theguardian.com, gwsubsus@theguardian.com, business.information@theguardian.com, roger.clapham@theguardian.com, rights@theguardian.com, watchdog@bbc.co.uk, RipOffBritain@bbc.co.uk, yourlondon@bbc.co.uk, dtnews@telegraph.co.uk, stnews@telegraph.co.uk, customerservice@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphenquiries@telegraph.co.uk, stletters@telegraph.co.uk, syndication@telegraph.co.uk, digitalservices@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphenquiries@telegraph.co.uk, media.enquiries@telegraph.co.uk, announcements.ads@telegraph.co.uk, gardenshop@telegraph.co.uk, telegraphworks@telegraph.co.uk, viewerservices@itv.com, investor.relations@itv.com, groupsecretariat@itv.com, enquiries@linkgroup.com, itvcommercial@itv.com, yourrecruitment@reachplc.com, communications@reachplc.com, mirrornews@mirror.co.uk, madeuthink@mirror.co.uk, picturedesk@mirror.co.uk, scoops@sundaymirror.co.uk, feedback@people.co.uk, tabletsupport@reachplc.com, desk@mirrorpix.com, video@mirror.co.uk, webpictures@mirror.co.uk, webcelebs@mirror.co.uk, mirror.money.saving@mirror.co.uk, webnews@mirror.co.uk, blanche.coupland@reachplc.com, becky.clay@reachplc.com, chris.parker-loftus@reachplc.com, partnerships@reachplc.com, karen.brodie@reachplc.com

Human Rights Watch

oslooutreach@hrw.org, paris@hrw.org, sweden@hrw.org, zurich@hrw.org

Netherlands

Dutch Embassies
kab@minbuza.nl, tir@minbuza.nl, alg@minbuza.nl, par@minbuza.nl, lua@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, bue@minbuza.nl, tbi@minbuza.nl, can@minbuza.nl, bak@minbuza.nl, lis@minbuza.nl, kwe@minbuza.nl, dha@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, msk@minbuza.nl, bru@minbuza.nl, mex-info@minbuza.nl, cot@minbuza.nl, nde@minbuza.nl, lim@minbuza.nl, sar@minbuza.nl, rjansen@conservation.org, por@minbuza.nl, sof@minbuza.nl, bam@minbuza.nl, buj@minbuza.nl, ban@minbuza.nl, ott@minbuza.nl, pek@minbuza.nl, bog@minbuza.nl, kss@minbuza.nl, sjo@minbuza.nl, hav@minbuza.nl, nic@minbuza.nl, kop@minbuza.nl, por@minbuza.nl, std@minbuza.nl, bln@minbuza.nl

Dutch media
ad@ad.nl, bnn@omroep.nl, eindredactie@frieschdagblad.nl, eo@omroep.nl, groene@groene.nl, ikon@ikon.nl, info@vpro.nl, kro@omroep.nl, magazine@fnv.nl, ncrv@omroep.nl, nieuwsdienst@anp.nl, nieuwsdienst@telegraaf.nl, nps@omroep.nl, nrc@nrc.nl, red@hfd.nl, redactie@2vandaag.nl, redactie@katholieknieuwsblad.nl, redactie@milieudefensie.nl, redactie@nd.nl, redactie@parool.nl, redactie@spitsnet.nl, redactie@trouw.nl, redactie@volkskrant.nl, redaktie@gpd.nl, redactie@metronieuws.nl, rtlnieuws@rtl4.nl, staatscourant@sdu.nl, tribune@sp.nl, vara@vara.nl, brieven@volkskrant.nl, opinie@volkskrant.nl

Belgium

Belgium embassies
vienna@diplobel.fed.be, sofia@diplobel.fed.be, cons.on.belgio.mi@futureleadersociety.com, copenhagen@diplobel.fed.be, london@diplobel.fed.be, helsinki@diplobel.fed.be, cad.bruxelles-amba@diplomatie.gouv.fr, berlin@diplobel.fed.be, athens@diplobel.fed.be, guy.hanoulle@mil.be, guy.hanoulle@mil.be, cons.on.belgio.mi@futureleadersociety.com, thehague@diplobel.fed.be, oslo@diplobel.fed.be, kiev@diplobel.fed.be

Warning please be advised:

Sending out too many emails at one time can suspend your email account. Make sure to send out small groups at one time and wait a couple of minutes before sending more… You have to prove to the email system you are NOT a bot. So please act human when sending out these emails. 

Please help to keep this publication free by leaving a tip

NRA under fire for supporting red flag law

A new strategic tactic being deployed to take down the NRA is Red Flag Laws. Over the last few years this tactic has escalated, and it has doubled in 2019. Every state has introduced legislation in one form or another that leaves the door wide open to dissolve our 2nd amendment (2A) right to bear arms.

The NRA has always been the strongest lobbyist that fight against these backdoor policies that infringe on our 2A. They spend millions of dollars every year fighting corrupt anti-2A legislation. They have been the strongest supporters protecting our 2A.

But now the red flag legislation is flooding into every state at a money draining rate for the NRA to continue to fight against.  

It is no secret that the NRA is in financial trouble with the organization showing $30M in the red. This did not happen overnight. It started with Ackerman McQueen their go-to marketing team that has been siphoning 14% of the NRA’s total budget ($42 million, 2017) and NRA putting another $4.8M into lobbying. This is not to mention the money that was given to the Trump campaign ($36 million, 2016) and another $18M into lobbying (2016).

Once salaries are factored into this equation, like LaPierre’s (CEO) $1M; it is not hard to see the NRA’s supporters can’t keep up with the money being spent. In fact, on the NRA’s website it states it only received $23K in contributes in 2018. It does not show the money raised through newsletters, sporting events, swag, and gun safety education and training programs. NRA memberships have been on the decline since 2001.

So, I must ask, “where are they getting all the money they are shoveling out?”

“Could it be by helping to sponsor pro-gun-control legislation?”

The NRA is now under fire by its supporters because of LaPierre’s sudden 180 that supports ERPO (Extreme risk protection order). If this passes it would mean that one person could make a report and Law enforcement could break down your door and confiscate your guns.

The following conditions NRA would support, but I posted some questions you should ask yourself:

  • It would be up to you to prove your innocents in a court of law.
  • Can you afford a good attorney?
  • It will be up to you to prove you are not mentally ill.
  • Will you be able to choose your own psychiatrists or therapist?
  • It would be up to you to prove you do not pose a significant risk of danger to yourself or others.
  • Was it a court appointed psychiatrist or therapist that did the evaluation on you?
  • It would be up to a judge to decide whether you meet the state standard for involuntary commitment.
  • Do you know your state standards?

If you are judged unfit:

  • An ex-parte proceeding would decide to admit you for treatment.
  • Who are these ex-parte members?
  • Your 2A would be temporarily deprived.
  • For how long and if found innocent, would all the proceedings be stricken from the records?
  • All your firearms would be relinquished to law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement, or a federally licensed firearms dealer.
  • Not a question just… Good luck getting them back…

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ~2A

So, let us imagine a neighbor lodges a complaint against you. All the neighbor would have to say is they have a crazy neighbor who they know has a gun(s). The agency would ask the complainant questions, and we all know an individual’s perspective can be bias. So, the answer to the questions could be biased. It would still be grounds for gun confiscation. Your 2A right has just been infringed upon. Your 2A no longer stands in its pure state. It is gone! It is now your job to defend your right not to be infringed upon.

So, why is the NRA backing ERPO? Could it be they no longer have the money to lobby against it because of all the red flag legislation being forced through at an exponential pace, and the organization’s spending is so extravagant it no longer can monetarily keep up? Maybe if they support it, they can continue to survive in the cutthroat world of politics.

But one thing we all know, the NRA has been compromised!

There are some petitions below to stop all red flag laws. Please sign

If you liked this article help us to keep independent journalism flowing and our development team busy

Our development team are building a complete networking platform that will include:

  • Social sharing and networking
  • Write for us news platform
  • And social apps

to keep the information uncensored and free flowing

Please contribute today

The scam through fraudem legis

Fraudem legis is a Latin term which means in fraud of law. It includes any act done with the fraudulent intention of evading law” (US Legal, Inc.)

What would you do if you found out someone committed a heinous crime to scam millions of people out of their hard-earned money? Now what would you do if you found out it was blamed on someone else? To take it further, what would you do if it was done by your own government to raise money to cover up poor spending habits, invest in insider trading, or just line their own pockets?

This con game is so heinous I had to invent a word just to write about it and categorize the crimes of the actor[s] and the actions. Govartifice is the combination of the Latin word artificium, and the old French word Government. As a noun it can be used to name the ruling person or groups of ruling class. As a verb it can be used to describe the actions (see description below). The individual person will be named what they are, Govartifice-grifters, the legislative body, and Govartifice-grafters, presidents and their cabinet members, dictators, monarchies, etc. the ones put in charge to rule over others.

The con

Grifters make it into office playing the short game, playing off people’s emotions. The Grafters get elected by playing the long game, they are sponsored or have their own money to spend bribing their way into the elections. A Grafter will also make secret promises to foreign and domestic entities.

While elected Govartifice-Grifters are not as well respected as the elected Govartifice-Grafters, both learn how to create a symbiotic relationship to pull off the biggest public cons.

Historic govartifices have been Nixon’s insurance con. This involved putting a public traded middle-company between you and your health; you and your driving; you and just about any important function of your life that would allow an individual independence. You are now dependent on a middle-company for all your independent needs. This is a long game con. The Govartifices all hold stock in these public traded companies.

An even older historic govartifice would be setting up the Federal Reserve. But this will be for another article.

The most successful Govartifice setup NGO’s (non-government organizations) and charities that launder massive amounts of money and siphon it upwards. This money can be used to cover up poor spending habits, fund illegal activities, bribery, or just line the Govartifice-grifter’s and Govartifice-grafter’s pockets. It is the safest place for govartifices to manage and disperse massive amounts of money. NGO’s and charities have very few eyes on them, transactions can be very hard to trace and follow, because there are thousands of them out there.

Cash grabs

Because it is so easy to setup a charity and/or NGO’s, cash grabs are easily concealed. It can turn illegal activity into legal transactions. The public are the biggest contributors to this kind of govartifice scam because of the heinous nature of the crime, it pulls at the heartstrings of any caring and compassionate person. This type of govartifice can also illicit large sums of money from foreign governments and their citizens. This cash grab involves millions and sometimes billions of dollars.

One of the largest govartifices to date in the United States was 9/11. It generated over 1.4 billion documented dollars. This number does not include the aid from foreign countries. The public payout was only 324 million. There is over 1 billion that was not dispersed. Most if not all the repair spending came from the collected taxes. This heinous activity made Govartifices wealthy overnight.

Govartifice is not limited to the United States, just recently the roof of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris France, was set on fire. In two days, it has already raised more than 1 Billion dollars in foreign and domestic public aid laundered through NGO’s and charities. That number does not reflect the monetary aid coming from foreign governments. The repairs to the cathedral roof will only take a small fraction of the cash grab.

To make this even more sinister and to divert attention away from the con like all grifters and grafters do, a false narrative is presented to the public through controlled outlets. While the public looks one way, the Govartifice will cleverly conceal most of the funds raised. The control of the media outlets for this govartifice is critical for it to continue to be successful. So far to date the Muslim’s are the chosen villains. Notice how the heinous acts are blamed on a religious practice and not a set group of people? It makes the villain impossible to track and hunt down (grifters and grafters know this). It is the art of the shell game. It is the same as telling the public Christens, Catholics, or the Jewish people did it.

This tactic is used to dis-empower the public and keep them forever searching for the culprit. It is a deceitful practice and commonly used by the Govartifice.  

So why does the Middle East, with the highest population of Muslims, stay silent? They don’t but like all grifts and grafts, the Govartifices keep creating more elaborate diversions to keep them from being heard by the public. This is where controlling the narrative becomes imperative. There are also Govartifices in the middle east that get a cut to remain silent.  

Govartifice’s are so skilled and successful in the art of con, the public they rule over are no longer seen as people, they are now seen as “marks”!

Govartifice (noun) A body of ruling class that are underhanded and skilled at deception. This can be applied to a single individual that rules or governs over others.

Govartifice (Verb) (third-person singular simple present govartifices, present participle govartificing, simple past and past participle govartificed) The governments crafty and strategic maneuvers that uses some clever means to avoid detection or capture.

Observing An Unfair Trial Firsthand

       To be a fly on the wall in Janet Delfuoco’s jury trial was an experience I will never forget for many reasons. To preface my recount of the day, I had written a previous article about the situation she was currently in. After battling the court system for years in regards to a poor decision made by a judge in family court, she still did not have custody of her daughter. Before today, I really didn’t understand the gravity of her situation. There came a time she made a few posts on Facebook that were taken out of context regarding the judges overseeing her case. When I wrote the first article, I had been discussing how the court denied her request for a lawyer which was her constitutional right. When I arrived, they were interviewing a clerk from the courthouse. I found this interview peculiar, when she was asked how often people called them angrily at the courthouse, the woman claimed that “on a scale of 1 to 10, Janet was a 20”. She elaborated how when Janet called in she played the phone call on speakerphone without consent. She claimed to be fresh on details for the prosecution, but got forgetful when questioned by the defense.
       In regards to the detective for the Attorney Generals office, he was interviewed second but it’s what the jury DIDN’T see that is relevant. When they were out of the room Janet was battling to get a video admitted to evidence from a year ago where she talked to this detective and thought it would help her defense now. She entered a motion to allow exculpatory evidence as all evidence should have been available to her. The prosecution used posts against her in court referencing a woman who was supposed to be a witness for the defense, but she was not allowed to testify. A representative from the ACLU entered a motion to remove the evidence because it was unconstitutionally obtained, but that was denied.
       Janet was barred from even bringing up the video, but still questioned him. He talked about how they obtained a warrant for her Facebook information for a period of several months without notifying her. The reason I started to get eerie feelings is because in my personal opinion, though she was advised of her right to not incriminate herself, in many ways she was still left no choice. She was denied a lawyer, denied witnesses, and was not allowed to use the same evidence for her defense that had been used to arrest her. She had taped the conversation in question, yet couldn’t play it or talk about it.        She eventually took the stand and spoke the truth about what happened. Over a year ago she made these posts on Facebook, but soon after removed them a couple hours later at a friends advice. The detective who had been emailed about it, called her and she explained that she was talking about karma in her posts. She explained how she realized soon after how they could have been taken out of context and removed them herself. The video showing their conversation over a year ago where they left it on good terms was the one not allowed into evidence.  
       The Attorney General’s office waited a year after she posted these things before they indicted her for threatening to hurt a judge. In one of the breaks the Judge himself admitted that it was very reasonable to assume Janet was not threatening to kill anyone. We did hear many other posts brought up about corruption in the courts, banks, etc. They tried to paint a picture like she was some radical, but when she spoke we saw who she really is. This woman does a job most couldn’t bare. As a hospice nurse and reiki practitioner, she talked about how planning to harm someone couldn’t be further from who she was. Her faith and careers are both about love and healing. She emphasized how she wanted the negativity to stop, and this system to protect her instead of hurt her.

       Since the incident she had been much more mindful online, and even helped work to correct issues with laws so bad things don’t happen to good people again. In the whole year after these posts were made and deleted, nobody was harmed, and Janet spent her time trying to raise awareness about a system that really is broken.
The whole day was live broadcast to Facebook, and we had a number of us there. I think this made a huge difference as there was proof the whole day of what happened here. My heart really goes out to her, I spoke to her boss while we were on break and he had wonderful things to say. I guess he too wasn’t allowed to testify, but said she is a tremendously dedicated caretaker. There is still closing arguments tomorrow before the case closes, but nothing about this was a “fair trial”. Janet absolutely shouldn’t have had to testify, but I do think it made a big difference. To try and put a hospice nurse in prison for that long over a few Facebook posts a year after confirming there was no threat? That’s both ludicrous and a clear indicator of a much bigger problem. When Janet spoke, she showed the jury something real. After hours of micro-analyzing a few posts to try and prove a point that was a stretch at best, Janet told the truth. Personally, for someone who had the cards stacked against them, I think they very well could rule in her favor…I would.
       The experience itself was powerful, I couldn’t imagine being in her shoes had nobody been there to support her…alone against the court. These sorts of thing happen all to often, and seeing it with your own eyes is an experience in itself. The people who came together today to fill that courtroom were amazing. The dedication to each other, a good cause, and helping someone in need is beyond commendable. Where her right to counsel was denied, I feel this group acted as a check and balance on the judiciary today. After years of stress and parental alienation, I think Janet finally deserves some peace of mind. Janet was wronged from the beginning with these courts and to truly understand that viewers would have to see what she says at a few points towards the end. I’ll be praying tonight that she gets a “not guilty” verdict, but I’m pretty confident she will.

-Adam Rice

VIDEO OF HEARING

CPS In Texas Takes A BOLO Too Far And Unlawfully Arrests And Detains A Whole Family

       In this article we are going to take a look again at a case of false imprisonment and detainment that is currently transpiring in Texas. There is a systematic failure that has recently caught the attention of one judge in the state. U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack has recently ordered state officials to make over 100 changes to start correcting the child welfare system in regards to numerous failings she is attempting to stop. In this article we are going to take a look at a video of an altercation between Marie Cruz and local police, where she and her family were illegally detained based off of the orders from Child Protective Services, and her son was unlawfully arrested. At the conclusion of this piece, I will attempt to outline exactly why this was illegal, what rights citizens have, define things like a “B.O.L.O.”, and explain how CPS violates constitutional rights when officers acting on their behalf step outside what the law gives them power to do. I will also provide resources at the end to information on situations like this, and a link to my article on Section 1983 litigation and making a claim of false arrest.

FIRST, MARIE'S SON IS UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT OR PROBABLE CAUSE

       In the first video we are shown through Marie’s footage that was streamed live, her family member being taken into custody for possession of a firearm. Police arrived at their vehicle while shopping at a flea market responding to a B.O.L.O. that C.P.S. instructed local officers to carry out. Officers immediately detained Marie and her three children, and proceeded to enact an unlawful arrest on her oldest son. Her oldest son was in legal possession of a firearm under Texas law but refused to provide identification at the officers request, and instead inquired the reason for their being detained. The officers are seen cutting his holster from his person, and dragging him away from the premise stating the grounds as “failure to identify”. The Texas penal code defines this charge as valid when refusing information during a lawful arrest. At the time, no crime had been committed as the family had simply been shopping. Likewise, the officers responding possessed no warrant to detain Marie’s oldest son on suspicion of involvement in a crime. Given that this was not a lawful arrest, constitutionally and under Texas law the individual was committing no crime by withholding his information at the time he was physically restrained for exercising his rights. Under Texas law you have to be under arrest and charged with a crime to be required to provide your name and information. If a citizen is only being detained, they are not obligated to say anything including their name. Until the point they are actually arrested, they cannot be charged with “failure to identify” as this charge requires a crime be committed for a citizen to be required to identify themselves formally. Arresting a citizen for not identifying themselves without their being under arrest for a separate crime at the time would be an unlawful arrest, and a civil rights violation under both state and federal laws.
       In the state of Texas citizens have the right to constitutional carry, and the possession of a firearm is not a legal justification to search or detain a citizen who has not committed a crime. Texas has constitutional open carry laws that have been upheld in courts that the act of possessing or carrying a firearm is not an arrest-able offense. Likewise in Texas, an officer cannot compel a citizen for ID or personal information based solely on the fact that they possess or are carrying a firearm. Until a crime is committed any detainment or search of ones person is unlawful and they cannot be compelled to incriminate or identify themselves. The existing B.O.L.O was not a warrant, and the fact that no crime had been committed by the son seen in the first video, him being taken into custody for the charge of failure to identify illustrates a gross overstep of power by the officers involved. Between this video and the next, viewers witness the rights of four people violated all stemming from this initial unlawful detainment.

AND OFFICERS THEN PROCEED TO DETAIN MARIE UNTIL CPS ARRIVES DESPITE CONFIRMING THERE WAS NO IMMINENT DANGER

       The second video begins with police outlining to this mother that she was being detained because CPS had put out a B.O.L.O. for her and her children, and they were required by law to locate her children and ensure they are safe. Marie inquires to the officer why she is being detained if no crime had been committed. The officer on camera states no laws had been broken, and they were acting on C.P.S.’s B.O.L.O. In Texas there is a law that gives this agency the power to have police carry out a procedure like a B.O.L.O., but does not permit much of what is seen in the video. Later in this article I will outline HB 2053, and how Texas law only requires that officers responding to the B.O.L.O notify CPS that the children are safe when that is the case, and only empowers them to attempt to take kids without a court order when clear imminent danger is sensed. This same law does not permit any type of detention or arrest in the event the children are not found to be in imminent danger. The officer states on film that the children are in fact safe, but the mother cannot leave with her children despite their having no warrant, and no crime being committed. The officer further elaborates that he can legally detain her for 20 minutes while he waits for the warrant and/or CPS to get there. In this same time we watch them park their vehicle in to prevent her leaving, and at each of her attempts to leave on foot she is also prevented from leaving.
       We see the officers continue to hold the mother against her will after verifying the safety of her children in a clear attempt to buy time until CPS officials arrive. Finally, two people arrive, and the officer in charge leaves as Marie states for the video that her phone is about to die. We can hear the woman wearing a badge tell the mother that they need to inspect her home as the video ends. HB 2053 is a bill that cleared the house several years ago that defined when CPS could utilize officers of the law to track down parents or children. Through this bill it empowers the CPS officials to keep a list of people either in the system or receiving services who they deem should be checked in on periodically. It outlines also what is to be done in the event this agency is looking for someone and cannot find them. This is the law that allowed CPS to even put a B.O.L.O. out in the first place. The important piece of this legislation worth noting is Article 2.272 where it outlines how law enforcement is supposed to respond in the event that they encounter someone who is being sought by CPS. An officer of the law is only permitted to take children from their parents in this scenario under family code Section 262.104. It is this code that outlines how it has to be apparent that the children are in clear imminent danger to be able to take said children without a court order. As the video establishes, when the officer acknowledges there is no imminent danger he is at that point detaining the family unlawfully when he should be notifying CPS the children were safe and instructing Marie to contact her case worker. This is a very clear example how a justified B.O.L.O. can quickly turn into a civil rights violation when people acting on behalf of the state act outside the law themselves.

ON WHY THE WAY THIS WAS HANDLED WAS UNLAWFUL...

       The first thing that should be clarified here is that a B.O.L.O. is not a warrant. This term means “be on the look out”, and is not a reference to anything that permits detainment of citizens. When officers are on the lookout, it would imply that this is for questioning for relation to a crime. If the person in question has not committed a crime, and is not being charged there are rules regarding physically preventing them from leaving. The same is true for warrants, there are rules that govern what is required to actually arrest someone when charged with a crime, guilty or not. In Texas, a situation like the one above is tricky for a few reasons. Citizens of Texas can be charged with evading arrest for walking away from police, even if only detained and not under arrest. Citizens likewise do have to at least stop for officers, but are in no way obligated to answer any questions. It is each Texans right to either be charged with a crime or let go, however this is often not what happens.
       In the case of Marie, a previous incident resulted in a B.O.L.O. being issued, and she was detained after officers confirmed no crime had been committed. Police officers are agents of the Judicial Branch, meaning they are supposed to be taking orders from the court and enforcing laws. What transpired today was officers detaining a citizen so a private agency could place itself into her home life without any legal right to do so. Officers are supposed to detain citizens upon suspicion of a crime, and in her video we see the officer admit several time that all the criteria for her being allowed to leave were met, yet still hold her on the word of C.P.S. Had she left and been arrested for evading her false detainment, this agency would have taken her children and placed them in foster care despite the blatant disregard of anyone’s rights involved. Though it is your right to leave, often people are “baited” into charges in situations like these, and we can hear Marie mention this in the video.
      Since the 1960’s the child welfare system has gone from being a public entity to being managed by a conglomerate of nonprofit’s and private businesses. Over the years many arguments have been made both for and against it, and many argue that through privatization these same entities have become more concerned with government payouts than whats best for the families. There are immense issues on the table that all seem to stem from Child Protective Services having financial incentives to keep the maximum number of children in the system. A whole system has been built to provide homes for the children taken on orders of unelected entities holding no legal power. All too often we are seeing that the children taken should not have been, and that our government is allowing our tax dollars to fund this system that destroys many good families.
       The way CPS works is that based on laws requiring the reporting a child in danger, almost anything can initiate an investigation by Child Welfare Services. The result of a report being filed, is an agent of this network can ultimately rule on whether your children are taken from you. These agencies are still required to possess warrants to search your home, and your constitutional rights do apply to them as they would an officer of the law. It is the first instinct for many to comply and answer questions when confronted by CPS, but in actuality one can refuse to do so. What would happen is the same agency would have to obtain a court order based on reasonable suspicion of danger to get a warrant to search a persons home. Many do make arguments that if one knows they have done nothing wrong they can consent to a search or drug test to settle the matter, but each situation is different and many have still lost their children regardless. In this situation Marie was detained by an officer without a warrant who stated no crime had been committed, but they had either made or received a call for a child in danger. The officer who saw the kids safe held her illegally until this agency arrived to do their own investigation, which the mother had a legal right to refuse. By intimidating her with the fear of being arrested and losing her children they illegally coerced her into an unconstitutional search of her home. Below readers will find several links to articles touching the surface of the rights of parents and children when facing issues with CPS. Most information presented suggests that by becoming more aware of the rights we possess coupled with a knowledge of how the system operates it can empower us to exercise these same rights to defend ourselves properly. It would be my recommendation too to do your own research about your rights if you have children as data suggests the number of complaints to CPS continually rises, and they will investigate every claim no matter how ridiculous it is. Knowing and exercising your rights may not prevent wrongdoing from occurring, but it will force the officers or CPS to involve the courts to proceed further, and likewise will document and lay groundwork for a Monell claim should the situation not be resolved in your favor.
       Below readers will find a link to another article I did presenting the treatise of arrest, 1983 litigation, and Monell claims. I’m going to briefly summarize here how this all applies to the video and situation above, but recommend readers evaluate the material there as well. 1983 litigation outlines the procedure for taking civil action against an agency that has violated a persons civil rights. The Monell claim specifically is the supreme court ruling that upheld that courts, law enforcement, and other agencies or bureaus are liable to suit in the same way a person is. Using the example of what happened to Marie, the officers and police department would be liable for violating several rights by unlawfully detaining her, and the same would be true of CPS for causing this to happen, as well as coercing an unlawful search of the home. This process is outlined more in depth in my other article, and therein readers can find links that will describe what they are entitled to for damages while arguing this in court.
       In the state of Texas, to detain or arrest a person there has to be reasonable evidence to suggest they have committed a crime, or are about to. False arrest would be defined simply as an arrest made without constitutional grounds to stand on, or evidence to support the charge being alleged. An unlawful arrest is simply an arrest being made without a warrant, but it is still technically illegal to physically resist an unlawful arrest due to a past supreme court ruling finding that the physical interaction was not the best place to decide the validity of the arrest. The court at the time laid precedent that persons making a case for unlawful arrest should do so in the court room, and the Monell claim is the way to argue this and sue the people or agencies after the fact. Below are a couple links to Texas penal code information which defines both false imprisonment and unlawful restraint. These are seriously punishable offenses, and when officers without warrants detain parents who haven’t committed crimes it meets the criteria for criminal charges, fines, and suit for damages by the injured party.
       Much of this all comes down to our civil rights, due process, and liberty. Recently I wrote another article describing ways the courts themselves can be as corrupt as an agency like CPS. I’d also encourage readers to take a look at this as I’ve done my best to define the constitutional provisions that protect our rights to justice and the Blessings of Liberty. It is my opinion that all citizens should understand these rights and how to properly exercise them. No matter how much an agency or individual tries to convince citizens they don’t have rights, they to. The purpose of the Constitution was to preserve the intention that no branch of government, or agency acting on their behalf has the power to infringe our God given rights. In America we are all born free, and the videos displayed above are clear examples of how quickly citizens rights are infringed upon, and how easy it has become for private entities to destroy families in defiance of law in our nation.

SOURCES

Due Process, Liberty, And New Hampshire Courts Denying Both

The U.S. Constitution defines the inalienable or natural rights that cannot be taken from among citizens. Among those is not just the right to defend their person, but also in the judicial system. In this article readers will read about a situation in New Hampshire where a citizen is being denied due process. Also, below you can see video resources which have more views with the help of the trusted social media company themarketingheaven.com. You are born with the right to defend yourself in court, this is a natural right that long predates the Constitution. This document defines the powers of the courts, and the 5th and 14th Amendments exist to do just that. Courts do not have the power to deny your rights to representation, or a fair trial. The 5th reads: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and the 14th reads: “…; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All too often now we are learning that violations of our rights have become common in our “free” society. What is free though? Is it a country where the people writing the laws are not also subject them? Our judicial system in America has long since lost touch with the supreme law of our great nation. By denying citizens their liberty and right to due process, our courts are depriving many too of their inalienable rights. Many agents of the court are as power hungry as the “higher ups” in other areas of society, and all this does is erode any degree of fairness or morality in our courts. Its been argued throughout history that if a court writes unrespectful laws, they will challenge peoples morality. When the judicial system allows some people to be punished for crimes while others walk free, this is tyranny. When the civil servants do not show the same respect for the document they swore to protect, this too is tyranny. Each one of us is born with rights that cannot be taken from us and due process is outlined in the 6th Amendment.
This amendment is the most important one, because the right to council, fair trial, and a jury of your peers are the checks and balances on a judicial system. Tyranny is when your government takes away your ability to defend yourself. If you are facing any branch of your state or federal government and counsel is too scared to defend you, that is a clear indicator that something is very wrong. This Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” These rights are impeded differently all to often, and in many ways. Where the prosecutors and judges are paid for and directed by the government, it is this amendment that defines your irrevocable rights in a court room. Currently in New Hampshire, a woman who had spent time exposing violations of our rights now finds herself in trouble too.
To explain what is happening to Janet Delfuoco and her history with the Judicial system, its best to start a few years ago. When she and her ex-husband split up, the hearings for both divorce and custody were drawn out and left her filing complaints with the court. Another woman, Margaret Kris, also of New Hampshire had issues during her custody battle over her daughter. In her case, her husband at the time had been documented as beating her, while holding their infant daughter, and still the court awarded him full custody, and her visitations in a state facility funded by taxpayers. In Margaret’s case, over a decade later she still fights the court on the matter. What Janet faces now is quite a bit more serious. After the divorce, her husband stopped making loan payments at the bank which had their home as collateral. For several years Janet engaged in litigation regarding this home equity loan, with her seeking to have the bank discharge the mortgage. After two dismissals, the bank again demanded they resolve the financial matter and she made some posts on Facebook that were taken out of context.
According to discovery, screenshots were taken by a GSCU manager and forwarded to an unrelated attorney a day later. According to interviews with the Attorney General, the manager, Gallant forwarded these photos to Judges Weaver and Anderson. These two Judges had both previously had involvement in her custody dispute. For roughly a year these judges operated an investigation into her, and her associates before issuing her any sort of indictment. She now stands charged with two felonies and one misdemeanor for her posts on Facebook, and will have her day in court on April 8. The issue is that she cannot afford an Attorney and the same court system has denied her requests for a public defender. The prosecution must prove that her posts were caused with intent to harm a person to influence opinion or as retaliation for their actions as a government official. The law this is based on is because of a special class implemented in 2007 and has yet to be argued in the supreme court.
In the case of Margaret, she was never married to her daughter’s father. When it came time for the custody battle he bought the divorce lawyer from his previous marriage who he also left with over $30,000 in legal bills, and later pled bankruptcy. During their time together there was a documented history of domestic violence. At one point over 11 years ago police officers came with a court order to take her daughter after the separation. The court awarded custody to the abusive ex for 10 years before he finally left the state to Indiana. For over a year the court system has done nothing about his leaving, and the battle over custody still continues in New Hampshire. Margaret also had to file a complaint to be involved in her daughter’s education because her ex’s new wife said she was the mother. Her child has an auditory processing learning disability and as such has special needs. In Janet’s case she has asked the court to have Weaver not oversee her hearing, as he was involved in her custody dispute already while investigating her which would be the opposite of impartiality. Likewise Margret has asked that one Judge recuse themselves for not filing a single complaint while he violated every court order for a year.
The supreme law of our nation and it’s preamble is enough to define its purpose. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.” Now, this has two phrases that I’d implore readers to call attention to: establish justice, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. One could infer from these clauses that the Judicial system should be securing and preserving the Blessings of Liberty. If our inalienable or natural rights are part of Liberty, secured by the law of this document through the courts, then ideally the courts should be protecting the rights listed impartially. That would in my opinion be what they had in mind when designating power to the courts. Through due process, the courts would never acquire enough power to deny any citizen their Liberty.
Liberty is defined as being free in a society from oppressive restrictions by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. If the laws our courts create and enforce are bound by the principle that all citizens have an unalienable right to Liberty, then how could any agent of the court defy the document and not also face criminal charges? Tyranny, I’ve used this word a lot as it is important. This is defined as cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power by the Government on it’s people. In America, our Government was separated into three branches as a check and balance to prevent tyranny. To see an America where the Government again seized absolute power without legal right, all three branches would have to become tyrannical. These incidents in New Hampshire are only two of the countless examples that could be made about our failing judicial system. Something needs to change soon, as history would indicate that the more American’s are denied their natural right to Liberty, the closer we get to something far worse than what we have seen in this generation.

-Adam Rice

Video Resources:

Breathing new life into an old proposal

Sitting on the World Wide Web like some prehistoric fossil waiting to be rediscovered is the NCID (National Citizen’s Initiative for Democracy) proposal that was finalized in 2002 by former Senator Mike Gravel. Exploring the website was like uncovering a hidden relic. Clicking deeper into the site I found many links no longer work, but the core of the message was still intact. I was uncovering a document that had been buried for years.

This document I was now reading would have allow representative democracy, and direct democracy to coexist together. Gravel had worked on this proposal during the late 90’s. At that time, it was called the National Initiative proposal. He sent invitations to organizations, professors, media, elected individuals, and anybody else he could think of. The Democracy Foundation ultimately accepted at the 2002 Democracy Symposium that was held in Williamsburg, Virginia. Taking feedback from the conference into consideration, a final draft on the proposed amendment and act was published on September 17, 2002.

The proposal started to get some big-name endorsements in 2008, and this continued through 2012; and then it seemed to just disappear, it vanished from the public eye. It just died…

The NCID is being resuscitated through the Yellow Vest Movement. It is a fundamental legislative proposal that will allow citizens, independent of Representative Government (Congress, Executive and the Judiciary), to propose and vote on laws. NCID consists of a Constitutional amendment and a federal statute.

As it stands now there are only 26 states in USA that carry some type of Initiative and/or Popular Referendum. This is only at a state level. There are no Initiatives or Referendums at the federal level.

The NCID was brought to my attention through a colleague who runs the American Yellow Vest Facebook group. Like the rest of the 65 countries around the world who have joined the Global yellow vest movement, they are demanding some form of Citizen Initiative and Referendum. The United States Yellow Vests are demanding their own version. Who knew there was one that had already been drafted and endorsed, buried on the WWW for 17-years, waiting for the Yellow Vest Movement to come to the USA, to breath new life into this old proposal?

 

Read more about the NCID here.

Sign the Move On petition here.

Sign the We the People petition here.

Why We Can’t Repeal The Second Amendment

When our founding fathers framed our constitution in hopes of establishing a “better America”, it was ultimately necessary to make several amendments to its language. Of all the amendments passed to date I am going to provide a bit of information on the second one. If you search google right now for the terms “states trying to repeal the second amendment” the results are startling. I’ve written previously about how the mainstream media is little more than a corporate propaganda machine, and looking at some of these articles one can see what they are trying to get Americans to agree with:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/28/repealing-second-amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-it-even-possible/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/03/28/repealing-the-second-amendment-would-be-incredibly-difficult/

The second amendment text reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Often arguments are made that this text only provide protections for the states, or organized militias. The other side of this too will typically point out that the commas used are of high importance. Recently some states have found some rulings on gun bans overturned due to being unconstitutional. To understand a bit, one may be inclined to also read the 14th amendment. Section 1 reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It was the Bill of Rights that mandated States to provide citizens with specific rights, and the 14th amendment elaborates on this by stating states cannot write laws which will effectively take any rights from a citizen. Another reason for adding this amendment is also because for years it was believed these rights only applied to the government, then the states, and we are still in the process of “selective incorporation” where state supreme courts are still deciding which amendments to bring in.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+Doctrine

The 2nd amendment has been argued for generations now, and before we saw the passage of “Brady laws” in states to bar citizens from handgun ownership, we saw reversals begin to happen. In the 2nd amendment it talks about a well regulated militia, and at the time this was understood to include average citizens capable of fighting. In the case of US v. Miller, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling that states could require a registry for a sawed off shotgun, and the reasoning was that it could not be substantiated that the type of firearm was implicitly necessary to secure the militia. At the same time, they reiterated that the intent of the constitutions second amendment was to ensure citizens would provide their own firearms when called to defend the nation, and of the common type then. Later, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed which extrapolated off of the Miller ruling and barred handgun purchases in some states.
In 2008 the case of DC v. Heller overturned this ruling, interpreting it much differently. The “individual rights theory” approach had been utilized, finding that handguns were a common method of securing a home and that was the new interpretation of the second amendment. Furthermore it ruled that guns could not by law be rendered inoperable in the home as it would directly impede their purpose, and the rights provided by the constitution. In the case of McDonald v. Chicago courts officially ruled the second amendment is incorporated through the 14th amendment and enforceable on the states. It was noted that the amendments purpose at first was to guarantee ex-slaves the right to bear arms and defend themselves, and later too to minorities to defend themselves FROM state militias. To simplify the point that is often made these days, the second amendment was written so that the citizens can be armed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. When laws are written to take guns from average law abiding citizens, they leave open exceptions to groups like police, government officials, etc. Albeit the laws that are proposed in relation to the second amendment only ensure that an overreaching government is the only one with the guns. When taking the 14th amendment into account it defines how citizens may need to defend from state governments in the like, and the law should be interpreted the same way for the federal and state governments. If one were to repeal the 2nd amendment and take all the guns from the citizens, it would be the exact opposite of what our founding fathers intended. Had there been no guns at the time, America likely wouldn’t exist today; and furthermore had Hitler not taken the guns from citizens prior to the Holocaust, that too may have happened differently.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

Gun Rights and the 14th Amendment

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-s-gun-ruling-cites-intent-14th-amendment

Currently a law that was already passed in Ohio has caused quite an uproar over the same amendment. The law as written was said to be aimed at providing an allowance for the “stand your ground” law, but at same time align with the federal laws on shotguns under a certain length. It has been stated to be a mistake, but the language included would actually make it possible for a very wide range of rifles to become a felony to sell or possess. After reading the law myself, I concur that this is written in a way that could be interpreted to say it is illegal to carry almost any gun on ones person for any reason. Section 2923.12 of Ohio HB228 states:
“(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:
(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;
(2) A handgun other than a dangerous ordnance;
(3) A dangerous ordnance….”
and also elaborates:
“(C)(1) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An officer, agent, or employee of this or any other
state or the United States, or to a law enforcement officer, who
is authorized to carry concealed weapons or dangerous ordnance
or is authorized to carry handguns and is acting within the
scope of the officer’s, agent’s, or employee’s duties…”
Many people intend to exercise their first amendment rights in Ohio to demand the law be corrected. In my personal opinion it to me does not look like this was a mistake at all, frankly it seems like a back door was left open so that guns could be taken from people in such a way that would prevent future ownership. Also, it appears in my opinion to also be written in a way that could ensure any hearings at the judicial level would go smoothly. The law in its entirety is 81 pages long, and I would encourage anyone to read the whole thing. I am no legal scholar myself, but I do know that supreme court cases really come down to arguing at the end of the day. I could absolutely envision these small breadcrumbs be the equivalent to groundwork for a plan to disarm citizens, and Ohio isn’t even the only state trying something like this.

https://yellowvestusa.us/home/second-amendment-if-ohio-falls-the-rest-of-the-nation-will-follow/

https://legiscan.com/OH/text/HB228/id/1799329

In Hawaii, Senator Chang is attempting to pass resolution SCR42, which would repeal entirely the 2nd amendment. A lawyer who studied under Senator Warren, he has never been happy with the Heller ruling. Even though Hawaii has always had some of the toughest gun laws in the nation it is his standpoint that this law need be passed in his state. The text of this law is much shorter, but after clarifying a bit of terminology states:
“BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate of the Thirtieth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2019, the House of Representatives concurring, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and adopt a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right…”

Hawaii lawmakers want Congress to weigh 2nd Amendment repeal

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/bills/SCR42_.htm

We have seen something similar to this in history too, after WW1 the Germans were required to surrender their guns and ammo to the allied forces after signing the treaty of Versailles. In the 1930’s due to the rise of communism, these same measures eased a bit. Eventually Hitler was able to permit gun ownership again but due to his citizenship laws the Jews were still not included. When Hitler loosened the gun laws for his allies, he made it very clear that his enemies (the Jews) could not ever carry a gun. In many ways this, without delving into the balance of the man’s career choices, one could make a comparison to the tactics used. If a government wanted to enact a massive scheme against the wishes of the people, it would be far easier had the citizens been disarmed.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

Did Hitler Ban Guns?

The Nazi’s werent the only group that utilized these tactics, in fact most violent dictatorships in history were prefaced by citizen disarmament. Russia is another prime example of this, and the history of their disarmament begins in 1684 with minor laws restricting gun usage. In 1845, these restrictions were further expanded to limit where guns could even be used. In 1918 the free use and ownership became completely prohibited during the Bolshevik revolution. These laws allowed the government to seize all the firearms, outlaw possession, and jail violators up to 10 years. After the revolution concluded and scores perished, the citizens thought for sure they would regain the right to bear arms. As we all know how Russia is currently, I ascertain that a government like that has only persisted as long as it has due to the citizens not being able to adequately defend against their rulers.
Likewise, following World War 2 a group of democrats and communists led by Laszlo Rajk also disarmed citizens during the lead up to communist takeover stating “it protected their system of governance”. In 1981 Poland’s dictator, General Jaruzelski ultimately too seized all weapons from their limited ‘citizen’s militia’ and jailed anyone who favored democracy. In 2007, a Harvard study actually found that the crime and murder rates in Russia were at times triple that of America within the recent past. The crimes enacted ON citizens grew to be far worse than what was seen here, and many fell for their misinformation too. The same was true in the 1959 communist revolution in Cuba, once the citizens were disarmed they fell victim to their rulers and it was not long before their freedom was gone. Throughout history strong correlations are made between freedom and the ability of good people to own guns. If they take all the guns in America, I truly fear for what they plan to do next.

https://www.rbth.com/history/326865-guns-rifles-russia-revolution

https://gabriellahoffman.com/2016/06/my-family-fled-communism-stop-pushing-soviet-style-gun-control-here/

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Atheism-And-Gun-Control-The-History-Of-Governments-That-Slaughter-Their-Own-Citizrns

-Adam Rice

Corporatocracy

The war against Iraq is the creation of the corporations that have seized control of America and its institutions. America was once a democratic republic. It is now a corporatocracy. Corporations are soulless, deathless entities that have all the rights of citizenship that real people have and none of the responsibilities. Corporations have accumulated vast wealth that they have used to purchase, infiltrate, and colonize American government and many governments around the world. Corporations have absorbed the media, the two major political parties, the Congress, the Executive, almost all the Judiciary, in America and in many other countries, welding them into the globe-spanning unit that I have named the Corporatocracy. Corporations have distilled the essence of greed and rage to form their corporate structure. Profits must be maximized. Territory, natural resources, institutions, and citizens must be used and then discarded when they are no longer useful. Corporations must have more markets to colonize, and the military corporations, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, must have more countries to invade.

Since the end of World War II, corporations have emerged as the dominant force controlling the planet. Through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, a mere 200 corporations have managed to seize control of 28.3% of the world’s economic output. The fifty largest commercial banks and diversified financial companies assets amount to 60% of the $20 trillion global stock of productive capital.

The war against Iraq is being promoted by the transnational military-industrial corporations for their financial benefit. The business of America is the export of war. The financial institutions that trade in currency, stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments must have volatility in the markets in order to make a profit. War creates volatility. Between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion in currency trades are made by speculators every day!

The military-industrial corporations and the military components of the Corporatocracy receive about $400 billion per year from the U.S. Government directly and much more indirectly through pensions. Arms sales by U.S. dealers equaled the amount of arms sold by all other countries in the world combined. The amount of profit the financial institutions will realize probably cannot be calculated. The Corporatocracy must have war in order to turn over its stocks and in order to justify its continued existence. The succession of wars beginning with Vietnam (and continuing with GrenadaPanamaAfghanistanColombiaKuwait, Yugoslavia, Albania, etc.) and now Iraq is exactly like the succession of new models of cars produced by Detroit. Detroit’s cars, since Robert McNamara was head of Ford, have been built to become obsolete (McNamara went on to head the World Bank after he was Secretary of Defense during Vietnam). These wars are like that. Wars favored by the Corporatocracy require the existence of poor countries in which the munitions can be dumped, just like we dump our toxic waste in poor countries. Bombs must be dropped, missiles fired, planes flown, rifles discharged so that more bombs, missiles, planes and ammunition can be manufactured. It is not about oil. Iraq would gladly sell us all the oil we could buy. It is not even about empire. It is about business. It is all about profit. And that makes it all the more horrible, all the more unforgivable.

John Omaha, Ph.D.

“What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey [part of the Rockefeller empire] managers shipped the enemy’s fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars’ worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan [the Rockefeller family among others]? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler‘s communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the FockeWulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Goering’s cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?”

Charles Higham, author of “Trading With The Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949

Different forms of Government

Government comprises the set of legal and political institutions that regulate the relationships among members of a society and between the society and outsiders. These institutions have the authority to make decisions for the society on policies affecting the maintenance of order and the achievement of certain societal goals. This article provides an overview of the types of government, the ways authority can be distributed, the divisions of government, and the functions of government. Separate articles deal with the origins and development of the concept of the state, the theoretical and practical development of representation, law, and the study of government.

The power of a government over its own citizens varies, depending on the degree to which it is free of limitations and restraints. The power of a government abroad also varies, depending on the human and material resources with which it can support its foreign policy. Governments range in size and scope from clans, tribes, and the shires of early times to the superpowers and international governments of today. Until recent times some governments were strong enough to establish empires that ruled not only their own people but other peoples and states across national, ethnic, and language boundaries. The present-day counterpart of the empire is the superpower that is able to lead or dominate other countries through its superior military and economic strength. Within the modern nation-state, government operates at many different levels, ranging from villages to cities, counties, provinces, and states.

Types of Government

Aristotle, a Greek political philosopher of the 4th century B.C., distinguished three principal kinds of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity (a kind of enlightened democracy). The differences among them chiefly concerned whether power were held by one, by a few, or by many. Aristotle thought that the selfish abuse of power caused each type to become perverted, respectively, into tyranny, oligarchy, and a lower form of democracy characterized by mob rule. Monarchy tended to become tyrannical because it vested authority in a single ruler. Aristocracy, a government based on birth and privilege, in which the rulers governed for the good of the whole society, tended to become oligarchy as a consequence of restricting political power to a special social and economic class; only a few members of the class would have enough drive and ability to acquire the power to govern. The polity, likewise, would deteriorate into ochlocracy, or mob rule, if the citizens pursued only their selfish interests.

Aristotle’s classifications suited the societies of ancient times, but they do not correspond to the power structure of later societies. Modern writers have developed a variety of schemes for classifying governments, based on the nature of the ruling class, the economic system, the government’s political institutions, the principles of authority, the acquisition and exercise of power, and other factors. Some influential writers on government include Thomas Hobbes, Baron de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and the sociologist Max Weber.

Monarchy 

The most common form of government from ancient times to the early part of the 20th century was monarchy, or rule by a hereditary king or queen. Monarchy passed through three basic stages, varying according to the nation and the political and economic climate. The first stage was that of the absolute monarch. In the Christian part of the world during the Middle Ages, a conflict developed between the pope and the kings who recognized his spiritual authority. The pope wanted to expand the power of the church beyond spiritual matters to include the temporal realm. But some kings proclaimed that God had given them the right to rule, and by proclaiming this divine right they were able to give legitimacy to their reigns and limit the pope’s power.

Limited monarchy was the second stage. Kings depended on the support of the most powerful members of the nobility to retain their thrones. In England and some other Western European countries, the nobility placed limits on the power of the ruler to govern. This was done in England, for example, through the Magna Carta. Threatened with the loss of political and financial support, even the strongest kings and emperors had to accept a system of laws that protected the rights and privileges of powerful social and economic classes.

The third stage in the evolution of monarchy was the constitutional monarchy. Present-day monarchs are nearly all symbolic rather than actual rulers of their countries. (A few exceptions can be found in Africa and Asia.) In such monarchies as Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain, governing power is now in the hands of the national parliaments.

Constitutional Government  

Today most governments derive their legitimacy from national constitutions that provide a legal framework for their rule and specify how power is to be exercised and controlled. Even one-party states, such as the traditional Communist countries and other nations in Africa, Asia, and South America, have found it necessary to establish formal constitutions. In democratic countries the constitution can be amended or replaced by popular vote, either directly or through a system of elected representatives. In authoritarian one-party systems, however, all political power, including that of revising the constitution, resides with the leaders of the party. The constitution may thus be only a paper facade, and in order to understand how the country is governed one must examine the actual political process.

Democracy  

Representative government in the modern world is based not only on a constitution that provides for it but on the actual rule of law — the assurance that provisions of the constitution will be enforced. It requires that citizens be free to organize competing political parties, engage in political campaigns, and hold elections according to agreed-upon rules. Democratic governments vary in structure. Two common forms are the parliamentary and the presidential. In the parliamentary form of government, as in Australia, Britain, Canada, or India, all political power is concentrated in the parliament or legislature. The prime minister or premier and the officers of the cabinet are members of the parliament. They continue in office only as long as parliament supports — or has “confidence” in — their policies. In the presidential form of government, as in France and the United States, the voters elect a powerful chief executive who is independent of the legislature but whose actions are delimited by constitutional and other legal restraints.

Dictatorship 

As a form of government, dictatorship is principally a 20th-century phenomenon. The dictator, often a military leader, concentrates political power in himself and his clique. There is no effective rule of law. The regime may or may not have a distinctive political ideology and may or may not allow token opposition. The main function of a dictatorship is to maintain control of all governmental operations. There have been some cases — Indira Gandhi in India and several military dictatorships in Latin America — in which authoritarian rulers have relaxed their control and have even allowed open elections. In certain Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe dictators were forced from power in bloodless coups or voluntarily relinquished their authority to popularly elected officials as Soviet power declined.

The totalitarian dictatorship, as in Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the former USSR, is much more thoroughgoing. It seeks to control all aspects of national life, including the beliefs and attitudes of its people. It has a set of ideas that everyone is expected to embrace, such as revolutionary Marxism or counterrevolutionary fascism. At its most extreme, as during the leadership of Joseph Stalin in the USSR, the power of the dictator may become more absolute than in any of the earlier forms of tyranny. Such gross power in the hands of one person results inevitably in the development of what has been called a cult of personality. The leader is credited with almost infallible wisdom, because to admit that he or she may be wrong would deprive the regime of its authority. In some Communist countries the cult of personality appears to have given way to the dominance of a group of party leaders — a ruling oligarchy. The administrative complexities of managing a modern industrial state are too great to be monopolized by an individual leader such as Stalin or Mao Zedong(Mao Tse-tung). The successor regime in China, for example, continues to claim infallibility for its policies and doctrines but not for the leaders. Examples of 20th-century dictators in addition to those already mentioned include Idi Amin Dada(Uganda), Kemal Atatürk (Turkey), Fulgencio Batista and Fidel Castro (Cuba), Francisco Franco (Spain), Saddam Hussein(Iraq), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Benito Mussolini (Italy), Juan Peron (Argentina), and António Salazar (Portugal).

Distribution of Authority

Effective government in any form requires a workable method for distributing authority within the country. The larger and more diverse the jurisdiction of the government, the stronger the tendency toward a federal system in which authority is “layered” or distributed among different levels. In countries with a relatively homogeneous population and with a common tradition, language, and sense of national history, the central governments may not be federal but unitary — that is, they may retain most of the administrative power at the center. Loosely allied autonomous states sometimes join together to create a type of central government known as a confederation, in which the central government exists only at the pleasure of the sovereign members.

Federal Systems  

The United States and India with their state governments and Canada and China with their provincial governments are examples of workable federal systems in large nations with very diverse populations. Other federal states include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Germany. The national governments of these countries are clearly more powerful than those of their subdivisions, even though the constitutions delegate many powers and responsibilities to the sub-national units. In certain prescribed policy areas a state government may have a high degree of autonomy. In the United States, for example, state legislatures pass laws having to do with state affairs; state administrators carry them out; and state judiciaries interpret them.

Federal systems also include autonomous local governments such as county governments and municipal governments — in cities, boroughs, townships, and villages local governments may stand in a relationship to their state governments that corresponds to that of state governments with the national government. The citizens in each jurisdiction elect many of the public officials. In addition, certain special districts exist with a single function, such as education or sanitation, and have their own elected officials.

The layers of government in a federal system may not be clearly defined in practice. Often the different levels compete for control of functions and programs. In the United States and other countries the tendency over the years has been for the national government to become much more involved in areas that once were the exclusive domain of state or regional governments. In addition, the distribution of authority has become even more complex and varied with the rise of large metropolitan areas — the megalopolis — and the corresponding new local governmental organizations such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Unitary States 

In unitary states the national government performs all the governmental functions. Sub-national national units administer matters within their jurisdiction, but their powers are set and delegated by the national authority. The national government retains the police power — the inherent power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Taxation and major lawmaking powers also rest almost entirely with the national government.

Most nations are unitary states, but their institutions and processes may differ markedly. Great Britain, for example, is considered a unitary system, yet a certain degree of regional autonomy exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and local county governments perform certain fairly autonomous functions. In France, however, strict control over the administrative territorial subdivisions is exercised by the national government. In other unitary states there exists only token territorial decentralization.

Confederations  

Confederation produces the weakest central government. Member states in a confederation retain their sovereignty, delegating to the central government only those powers that are essential for its maintenance. The individual states jealously guard their power to tax and to make their own laws. The central government serves as a coordinating instrument to protect the interests of all its members. It also represents the confederation in dealings with outside governments, but its actions are subject to the review and approval of the confederated states.

The weakness of the confederate form of government led the United States to abandon that system in 1789 after only eight years. Confederations, however, have also served other nations — Germany and Switzerland, for example — as a preliminary step toward a more unified government. No modern nation-state is organized along confederate lines, yet some international organizations, such as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the European Union (formerly the European Community), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have some aspects of a confederation.

Divisions of Government

Various political thinkers have distinguished types of government activity. Montesquieu was the first, however, to urge the creation of three separate institutions or divisions of government—the executive, legislative, and judicial — a distinction that became common in almost all modern constitutions. Some governmental structures, notably that of the United States, are based on the principle of separation of powers at nearly every level. Executive, legislative, and judicial powers are divided into three branches of government, creating a system of checks and balances among them and helping to protect citizens from arbitrary and capricious actions on the part of any of the three branches. Such protection is crucial in the area of civil rights — those constitutionally guaranteed rights that shield the citizen from tyrannical actions by government. Often, in times of grave national emergency, when the central government needs more power, the public is willing to grant it. The executive branch usually predominates at such time.

Proponents of the separation of powers bring an additional argument in its favor: they point out that the system diminishes the influence of special-interest groups over any one branch of government or over the government as a whole. It is difficult for even the strongest faction to dominate a government in which the executive is elected by the entire population, members of the legislature represent different geographical constituencies, and the judges are appointed by the executive with the approval of the legislature.

Not all states, of course, have such clear divisions of government, nor do divisions necessarily guarantee personal liberties. Parliamentary democratic systems, for example, tend to merge legislative and executive functions yet control the exercise of power by constitutional methods of sharing it. Authoritarian states may, however, be constitutionally bound to have separate organs of government yet actually concentrate power in the executive.

Functions of Government

Maintenance of Authority  

One of the principal functions of government is to remain in power. Governments do not relinquish their authority unless compelled to do so. Many of the actions of politicians and civil servants can be explained by the need to maintain and enhance their power.

Every government strives to increase its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. It may identify itself with ancient traditions, with hope for the future, or with fear of a common enemy. Some governments employ repression, never relaxing their vigils against real or imagined opponents. Even democracies, when threatened, are likely to engage in a search for subversives and “enemies of the people.”

When a regime draws its main support from a privileged class or group that decreases in numbers and strength, when a government becomes ineffective in handling domestic affairs or countering external threats, or when a society’s consensus on the principles and goals of government evaporates, a government tends to lose authority. The French monarchy in the 18th century and the Russian monarchy in the 20th century were based on aristocracies that had lost much of their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. Eventually these regimes were unable to enforce their laws, and revolutions swept them from power.

Governments tend, therefore, to foster widespread ideological commitment to the nation through patriotic ceremonies, propaganda, and civic education; they employ armed forces and intelligence-gathering organizations for national defense; they maintain police and prison systems to ensure domestic order; and they undertake the administration of supervisory and regulatory functions to carry out national goals by establishing various bureaucracies to handle each complex function.

Administration  

All governments recognize the principle that the public must be protected and served. The citizen, in effect, surrenders a degree of individual sovereignty to the government in return for protection of life and property and the delivery of essential services. Governments supervise the resolution of conflicting interests, the workings of the political process, the enforcement of laws and rights, and the monitoring of national income and international trade; they regulate economic and social relationships among individuals and private organizations; and they carry out enterprises such as production of military goods, provision of postal services, and ownership of power utilities and public works. Among the most basic services provided by government are the printing and coining of money, the provision of roads, sewers, water, education, and social and welfare services.

With the growth of the welfare state, governments began to provide services such as social security and health insurance. But the scope of government regulation is now much broader. In the United States the government sets minimum wages, limits the rates charged by public utilities, buys farm commodities to keep prices up, forbids the sale of harmful foods and drugs, sets standards for gasoline consumption by automobiles, requires manufacturers to install antipollution devices, and monitors the safety of factories. Federal, state, and local governments in the United States also engage directly in economic activity. They impose taxes, produce and consume goods, sell electric power, lend money to farmers, and insure bank deposits.

In other countries governments intrude even further into the workings of the economy. In Western Europe governments own and operate telephone, radio, and television services, railroads, coal mines, and aircraft companies. In some countries, such as Sweden and Great Britain, the entire health system is also run by the state. In countries with Communist governments, such as the former USSR, North Korea, China, and Cuba, the state has attempted to control the entire economic life of the nation. All economic planning is centralized in the government and its bureaucracies. When the system fails to produce the goods and services expected by the people, the government is forced to increase the level of repression of its citizens in order to remain in power.

Internal Conflicts

The end of the cold war and the loss of control by the superpowers over international events have led to a different type of stress on many governments. The threats to their sovereignty are no longer external. Many nations, especially those artificially carved out of old empires that expired during both World Wars, are finding that the arbitrary power that maintained the central governments is no longer sufficient for the task. The communication revolution, through radio and the satellite transmission of television, has truly created a “global village.” Citizens no longer live in isolation. They demand the rights and privileges enjoyed by others.

Another kind of demand governments must try to meet comes from ethnic and religious groups that in some cases seek autonomy from the government. Some of these conflicts result in attempts at genocide, and the rest of the world appears powerless to intervene. These problems are not limited to Third World countries. NATO has revised its original purpose of preventing an invasion of western Europe to a strategy of maintaining smaller mobile forces to prevent the internal breakup of nations. But these internal conflicts continue to have the potential to produce anarchy and chaos, threatening entire regions.

International Government

In modern times national governments have become increasingly involved with one another in supranational systems. The League of Nations, established in 1919, grew to include more than 90 members. It collapsed in World War II but was succeeded by the United Nations (UN). The UN, like the League, is a voluntary association generally without power to act unless the five permanent members of the Security Council agree. It has, however, served as a forum for international debate and a convenient meeting ground for negotiations. The UN has also committed military forces of member nations in an attempt to limit the scope of conflicts that cannot be solved by national governments. UN forces have suffered casualties in some of these conflicts. The United Nations is now an international government in both theory and reality, and the organization will continue to face many serious challenges in many parts of the world.

Associated with the UN are a number of specialized organizations that perform important governmental functions. They include the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Court of Justice (World Court), the International Labor Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union.

The specialized agencies have enabled national governments to cooperate in many practical matters such as setting standards, extending technical and financial assistance to developing countries, eliminating or controlling epidemic diseases, and establishing an international monetary system.

Regional associations of nations have usually existed in a loose confederation for national security purposes or for vaguely defined geographical and political purposes. The European Union of 15 member nations has taken the concept of regional association to a much higher level. It has moved to create a political union among sovereign states, and its Common Market constitutes one of the major economies of the world.

Reviewed by Thomas B. Hartmann

Hartmann, T. B. (2014). Government. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Retrieved July 1, 2014, (03/06/2019) from Grolier Online http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0123980-0

Second Amendment- If Ohio falls the rest of the nation will follow

COLUMBUS, OHIO — A bill passed in the Statehouse would inadvertently make a million Ohio gun owner’s felons overnight.

House Bill 228 becomes a law on March 28 of this year. It was meant to expand stipulations in which shooting someone in self-defense is legally justified. But as it currently stands, it also makes owning certain rifles, guns with pistol grips or a weapon longer than 26 inches a felony.

According to WHOIO TV 7, The bill also attempted to align Ohio law with federal law regarding short-barrel weapons, or generally speaking shotguns with barrel lengths less than 16 inches.

Such guns are legal under federal law but classified as illegal in Ohio, even though many gun stores sell them. As the bill was being drafted, a misplaced paragraph unintentionally lumped a variety of long guns into a prohibited category.

Those could include semi-automatic AK-47s and any long gun with a pistol grip, which could also affect shotguns used in competitive shooting.

It’s unclear if the mistake would cause gun owners problems in “real-world terms,” said Dean Rieck, executive director of the gun rights group Buckeye Firearms, who said who said he’s consulted with lawyers for the National Rifle Association and Ohio’s Legislative Services Commission, among others.

Nevertheless, “We would prefer they deal with it immediately because it is causing a lot of concern and confusion among gun owners in Ohio,” Rieck said.

“It’s legally murky right now,” said state Rep. Niraj Antani, R-Miami Twp. “It could prohibit the sale of some firearms, which we do not want to do. That was a mistake. Our hope right now is to fix that mistake by the effective date so that it never affects anyone.”

Antani said, “it would be up to each jurisdiction as to how they enforce the new law. And he said he doesn’t believe county prosecutors would enforce that portion of it”.

But that’s not the point, said July Sparks of the Black Swamp Oathkeepters group. “We’ll already be prosecuted by being picked up. We’ll already be considered guilty. We just became felons. It’s not if the law passes – it passed,” Sparks said.

An amendment to the new bill will need to be introduced by March 20; to fix this grievous error. So far, the proposed amendments have only made this law worst.

The mistake illustrates the problem of rushing legislation through a lame duck session, said Sen. Cecil Thomas, a Democrat from Cincinnati.

“It’s just a bad way to do business now, and mistakes are made, and this is an example of that,” said Thomas, a retired police officer.

Was this a mistake, or has this been a deliberate manipulation? Ohio is one of the most important swing states that federal government covets. Could this lead to other states introducing similar legislation that in turn strips our second amendment rights?

Our second amendment right reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Does this sound like Ohio law makers are upholding our second amendment right? While they present this as a “mistake” I have to wonder could this be part of a bigger picture being played out?

A rally is planned for March 28 at the Ohio Capital to make sure this bill does not turn millions of Ohioans into felons overnight.

Quotes and statements collected by:

News Center 7’s Kayla Courvell

 

MIGJ Publication 1 – Adam Rice YVUSA

When it comes to the growing Yellow Vest movement, in America there are many things we do agree on and some we don’t. The easiest thing for people to agree on is the dire situation here at home that appears to mimic those seen abroad. We have all known for a while how corrupt the media is, but not until recently did any of us know the extent of what we didn’t. In hopes of providing the reality of situation most American’s face daily, I hope to paint a picture of why so many American’s have taken up this cause. Whether it is the degradation of our constitutional and civil rights or outright corruption, many Americans are now beginning to come together and realize the power they hold to correct issues with their sick society.
Income inequality has ballooned to a problem seen globally, many in America are unable to afford rent in addition to their utilities. In the U.S. we have seen a 61% increase in average rent while the median income has only risen 5% in the same time. Quite rapidly we are seeing residents driven out of their neighborhoods and forced into shelters as they can no longer afford housing. Systematic issues are trapping people there as the social programs no longer pay enough in rent to cover what the market demands. As this has progressed so long now, our shelters are so overcrowded there is no room to fit people and we’ve begun to see citizens freeze to death sleeping outside.

ARTICLE ON THE HOUSING CRISIS


Likewise, we have struggled immensely with a growing drug epidemic in our country. Large pharmaceutical companies have long since known drugs like Oxycontin were addictive but suppressed the data from the public. These companies have influenced politicians to obtain lengthy patents and suppress any cheaper or healthier alternatives. With our healthcare as a general concept there is history. President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act which many didn’t like because it forced us to get healthcare or face a fine. Currently there is a large movement to provide single-payer healthcare to all citizens, but due to concerns over funding there is no total consensus on best option. Ultimately our healthcare system is set up to prioritize the profit from medicine over the care of citizens, or their economic situation and there are a wide variety of focuses our movement hopes to correct as citizens through this movement.

ARTICLE ON PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES


When it comes to the economy there is ample agreement as to the need for reforms, but likewise there are no consensus. We have central banks that are called the federal reserve that are technically operating outside the mandate in our constitution. Our founding fathers intended us to have intrinsic currency that is backed by gold and printed by the Department of Treasury, yet we have money now that is backed by credit. What actually happens is treasury bonds get loaned to the central bank, our government pays interest on it, and money is created through the commercial banks. The problem is that this system creates never-ending debt, with money owed on each dollar circulating it is to the point if no money were printed we could spend it all and remain indebted. There are two schools of thought on this, some yellow vests want Modern Money Theory which has a stance to solve economic problems with a different implementation of fiat money. Other people wish to return to currency backed by gold, and tackle economic issues through auditing and reforms to policies that effect budgeting. There too are many hardships citizens experience economically, but most trace back to problems with our banks; all yellow vests do agree that something needs to change now in this respect.

THE FED AND THE NWO

ARTICLE ON BANK RUNS

Nonpartisans For Progress On Facebook [MMT]

I INTERVIEW ROCCO MILLON ON MMT


In America the news often has in the past presented opinion as fact, recently it became evident that they too lie blatantly and completely neglect large relevant stories. Only 6 companies collectively own and have a say in what we read, hear, and see on television. Likewise, with respect to our social media we see the same issue, a select few control it all and are able to use these tools to manipulate and divide our population. Many of us aren’t aware of this yet but our government’s CENTCOM has a program called Online Persona Management Services. In 2013 and 2017 NDAA laws were passed that not only permitted legal propaganda being spread to American’s, but also established military “trolls”. Our military operators are given 10 profiles a piece to manipulate and disband groups online working against the mainstream narrative. With all media our yellow vest movement wants our news to be truthful, unbiased, and to stop deliberately creating division among citizens. Our data likewise belongs to us, and we want a stop to predatory marketing. This is a topic that everyone here seems to agree on, and I hope that this movement will ultimately succeed in a reform to our media.

ARTICLE ON MEDIA CORRUPTION

ARTICLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA MANIPULATION


In America too, our judicial system as a whole needs a lot of work. We are all in agreement that with every problem in our society, the root cause is the laws being written. There is a whole complex set of interconnected problems yet as with most things its often money that corrects this system. With our failing mental health system, most are simply housed in jails that are rapidly becoming overcrowded as the drug epidemic worsens. Many prisons are likewise filled with people serving lengthy sentences for minor crimes. In France they have spent months now fighting for Referendums Initiated by Citizens which many here now agree is the best curb to this. This concept gives citizens the ability to create or remove laws, and there would no longer be a way for anyone in any part of society to corrupt the laws. The RIC can be used on anything, and is rendicient of ancient Greek democratic theory posed by Pythagoras. In America we have whats called the National Citizens Initiative for Democracy.
The American political system is slightly different, and through this implementation Americans would for once experience real democracy. We also have a group called The Rose Party, which exists because of the reality that nearly 80% of Americans will agree on policy, yet find our politics leave few satisfied. The whole system that only allows people to choose between parties or people is much more about giving up rights than anything. By only having ability to pick politicians, the system ensures we are dissatisfied enough to fight each other over our problems versus fix them. Likewise, the way we vote is simply outdated. Many people will not vote for an independent candidate for if they lose, the least favorable option may win. By reforming the way we vote we can also give opportunity to people who may actually do good, and most argue either scored or ranked choice voting would be far superior. Our country has for two years now seen a divide over our president unlike anything before, and this system has exploited that immensely to suppress the people. The best way to reclaim power over politics as a whole in my opinion (which many share) is through referendums and initiatives. That is the only way we can ensure the people always have as much power as those in office.

ALL APPLICABLE RIGHTS TO US CITIZENS


The list of issues here is immense, and this movement to most of us is about focusing on solutions not the problems. At each fork in the road we will likely see many choices, and people always see it differently. We’ve been conditioned for generations to think everything is a matter of duality, that opinions cannot be combined when in actuality that is the core of what common sense is. The yellow vest is not a political party, or movement simply because it doesn’t need to be. The labels that are given to us in our political system do little more than weaponize our beliefs and render us incapable of societal evolution. In no way has it been an easy task, but this movement must set these identities aside and also recognize that in no way does that mean they are sacrificing their opinions. The evolutionary nature of this whole thing revealed to many that the best way to be heard is by immediately ceasing support of corrupt politicians.
With a very small number of people controlling everything from behind the scenes, they are not far from controlling the whole world. This movement too isn’t simply about restoring our nations sovereignty (many wish to see an end to the UN), it is about restoring the sovereignty of the people. In the US constitution, the people hold all absolute power in this country. This movement in many ways is not just about “demanding change”, but simply educating enough people that we already have the power to do so. By using tactics like bank runs, strikes, boycotts, and peaceful protest we can absolutely leverage everything in our favor and have the law on our side. With generations being stripped of knowledge pertaining to how things work or what rights they have many think it is either impossible or end badly. These same influential cabal members depend on populations being fractured into many small pieces. If all citizens were united, aware, and educated properly there would be no contest with the citizens using the founding documents to correct a rapidly failing system.

A HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION AND BORDER ISSUES IN THE US, ONE OF OUR BIGGEST DIVIDES CURRENTLY


As citizens of the world respectively, this movement has global implications also. Naturally to resist global corruption it will take the entire globe rise up against it. Most countries currently too face large scale migration of people seeking asylum. In America, this has been a source of extreme disharmony due to a split opinion on building a border wall. In the last month our citizens have created a formal petition to address concerns at our border without building a wall, and also offering amnesty to immigrants currently residing in our country. We took this to as many groups as we could across party lines, and to be optimistic, it is appearing it may be met with a positive response. Truthfully this does little to solve the reasons people flee their countries, but the yellow vest does. In many peoples opinion, a yellow vest movement in countries experiencing crisis coupled with an end to predatory profit-driven foreign policy each country could ideally be returned to the citizens. We believe by encouraging this idea to each country of the world we can empower all people to enjoy a good life and real democracy.

KENDRA AND I TALK A BIT ABOUT THE MOVEMENT


The global yellow vest movement to me is partly about rebuilding the ties between our nations. I do not know the stance of other countries, but here in America we are moving towards a call to end the UN. As it stands, no citizen of any country appears to have a say in who serves here while the body still holds power over all sovereign nations. For a long time the UN has been marketed as things it was not even if there was still good done at time. A big piece of this movement is individual sovereignty, and especially that unelected bodies of people should NEVER hold power over this. Absolutely long term if we see this transpire, there must be something to replace it with, as well as it would need to be agreeable to all nations. When you think about what the UN should be doing, it should be a vessel for the people of all nations making collaborative decisions that effect people globally. Similar to the American government, many feel that the UN plays much more into global exploitation than furtherance. The global yellow vests want world peace, and have come to realize that while WE want that, the governments of the world generally don’t. By connecting our movements globally to serve the purpose of collaboration we can actually work towards ensuring this.
Mostly though, it is about love at the end of the day. I often tell members we cant do this because of hate despite of how angry we are. We must do this with love, for love, and because of love…all for people, animals, and the planet. We have underlying principles too, like putting truth over lies, or peace above war, and love over hate. The yellow vests here want a future. We want a system that is logical and appears to be founded on common sense. At the end of the day, its early on for us and February 23rd will be our first big march at our capital. With the state of things it is absolutely a difficult task to not only bring people together but keep them there. I have encountered so many people and opinions through this movement and hope that this can clarify a bit about our movement and what we fight for while also giving everyone a voice. If American’s could take one thing away from this I would tell them to BE LOVE, to PROMOTE PEACE, and that we all only get the changes we want when we become them.

Adam Rice is a 29 year old activist from Portland, ME. Passionate about mental health and housing he has spent many years making many attempts at changing his community. The yellow vest movement awakened something in him. A person who always believed in the power of the people, he saw this movement as an opportunity. In the coming months he has set his sights on unity. This is a time for coming together and Adam has made it his personal mission in 2019 to bring enough people together to make a real difference.

FRANCAIS

En ce qui concerne le mouvement croissant de Yellow Vest, en Amérique, il y a beaucoup de choses sur lesquelles nous sommes d’accord et d’autres que nous ne partageons pas. La chose la plus facile à convenir est la situation désastreuse chez nous qui semble imiter celle qui a été vue à l’étranger. Nous savons tous depuis un moment à quel point les médias sont corrompus, mais aucun de nous ne connaissait jusqu’à une date récente l’ampleur de ce que nous ignorions. Dans l’espoir de fournir quotidiennement la réalité de la situation au visage de la plupart des Américains, j’espère brosser un tableau des raisons pour lesquelles tant d’Américains ont pris cette cause. Qu’il s’agisse de la dégradation de nos droits constitutionnels et civils ou de la corruption pure et simple, de nombreux Américains commencent maintenant à se rassembler et à prendre conscience du pouvoir qu’ils détiennent pour corriger les problèmes de leur société malade.

CORRUPTION DES MEDIAS

#FBEXIT


L’inégalité des revenus a été ramenée à un problème mondial: de nombreux Américains n’ont pas les moyens de se payer un loyer en plus de leurs services publics. Aux États-Unis, le loyer moyen a augmenté de 61% alors que le revenu médian n’a augmenté que de 5% dans le même temps. Très rapidement, nous voyons des habitants chassés de leurs quartiers et obligés de se réfugier dans des abris car ils ne peuvent plus se permettre un logement. Des problèmes systématiques bloquent les gens là-bas, car les programmes sociaux ne paient plus suffisamment de loyer pour couvrir les demandes du marché. Comme cela a progressé si longtemps maintenant, nos refuges sont tellement surpeuplés qu’il n’y a pas de place pour les gens et que nous commençons à voir des citoyens mourir de froid en dormant dehors.


De même, nous avons énormément lutté contre l’épidémie croissante de drogue dans notre pays. Les grandes entreprises pharmaceutiques connaissent depuis longtemps des médicaments connus comme l’Oxycontin, mais ont supprimé les données du public. Ces entreprises ont incité les politiciens à obtenir de longs brevets et à supprimer toute alternative moins chère ou plus saine. Avec nos soins de santé en tant que concept général, il y a une histoire. Le président Obama a adopté la loi sur les soins abordables, ce qui n’a pas plu à beaucoup, parce qu’elle nous obligeait à obtenir des soins de santé ou à faire face à une amende. Il existe actuellement un vaste mouvement en faveur de la fourniture de soins de santé à payeur unique à tous les citoyens, mais en raison de préoccupations liées au financement, il n’existe pas de consensus total sur la meilleure option. En fin de compte, notre système de soins de santé est conçu pour privilégier les bénéfices des médicaments par rapport aux soins prodigués aux citoyens ou à leur situation économique. Notre mouvement espère corriger de nombreux problèmes en tant que citoyens grâce à ce mouvement.


Sur le plan économique, il existe un large consensus sur la nécessité de réformes, mais il n’existe pas non plus de consensus. Nous avons des banques centrales qu’on appelle la réserve fédérale qui opèrent techniquement en dehors du mandat de notre constitution. Nos pères fondateurs voulaient que nous ayons une monnaie intrinsèque adossée à de l’or et imprimée par le Département du Trésor. Pourtant, nous avons maintenant de l’argent adossé à du crédit. En réalité, les obligations du Trésor sont prêtées à la banque centrale, notre gouvernement verse des intérêts sur celle-ci et de l’argent est créé par l’intermédiaire des banques commerciales. Le problème est que ce système crée une dette sans fin, avec des dettes sur chaque dollar en circulation, au point que si aucune somme n’était imprimée, nous pourrions tout dépenser et rester endettés. Il existe deux écoles de pensée à ce sujet. Certains gilets jaunes veulent la théorie monétaire moderne, qui a pour objectif de résoudre les problèmes économiques avec une mise en œuvre différente de la monnaie fiduciaire. D’autres personnes souhaitent retrouver des devises reposant sur l’or et s’attaquer aux problèmes économiques par le biais d’audits et de réformes des politiques ayant un impact sur la budgétisation. Les citoyens sont également confrontés à de nombreuses difficultés économiques, mais la plupart sont dus à des problèmes avec nos banques; tous les gilets jaunes conviennent que quelque chose doit changer maintenant à cet égard.


En Amérique aussi, notre système judiciaire dans son ensemble a besoin de beaucoup de travail. Nous sommes tous d’accord sur le fait que, pour chaque problème de notre société, les lois sont en train d’être écrites. Il existe tout un ensemble complexe de problèmes interconnectés, mais dans la plupart des cas, c’est souvent l’argent qui corrige ce système. Avec notre système de santé mentale défaillant, la plupart d’entre eux sont simplement hébergés dans des prisons qui deviennent rapidement surpeuplées à mesure que l’épidémie de drogue s’aggrave. De même, de nombreuses prisons sont remplies de personnes purgeant de lourdes peines pour des crimes mineurs. En France, ils ont passé des mois à se battre pour des référendums initiés par des citoyens, ce que beaucoup de personnes ici reconnaissent sont le meilleur frein à cela. Ce concept donne aux citoyens la possibilité de créer ou de supprimer des lois, et il n’y aurait plus moyen pour quiconque dans la société de corrompre les lois. Le RIC peut être utilisé sur n’importe quoi et rend fidèle à l’ancienne théorie démocratique grecque posée par Pythagore. En Amérique, nous avons ce que l’on appelle l’Initiative nationale des citoyens pour la démocratie.


Le système politique américain est légèrement différent et, grâce à cette mise en œuvre, les Américains feraient pour une fois l’expérience d’une démocratie réelle. Nous avons également un groupe appelé The Rose Party, créé en raison du fait que près de 80% des Américains sont d’accord sur une politique, mais que notre politique laisse peu de gens satisfaits. L’ensemble du système qui permet uniquement aux personnes de choisir entre des partis ou des personnes consiste beaucoup plus à céder des droits qu’autre chose. En ne pouvant choisir que des politiciens, le système garantit que nous sommes suffisamment mécontents pour nous battre pour résoudre nos problèmes plutôt que pour les résoudre. De même, notre façon de voter est simplement dépassée. Beaucoup de gens ne voteront pas pour un candidat indépendant car s’ils perdent, l’option la moins favorable peut l’emporter. En réformant notre façon de voter, nous pouvons également donner la possibilité à des personnes qui peuvent réellement faire le bien, et la plupart soutiennent que le vote par score ou classé par vote serait de loin supérieur. Depuis deux ans, notre pays a connu une division sans précédent avec notre président, et ce système a énormément exploité cette volonté de réprimer le peuple. Le meilleur moyen de récupérer le pouvoir sur la politique dans son ensemble à mon avis (ce que beaucoup partagent) est à travers des référendums et des initiatives. C’est le seul moyen de faire en sorte que les membres du public aient toujours autant de pouvoir que ceux qui sont au pouvoir.


La liste des problèmes ici est immense, et ce mouvement concerne pour la plupart d’entre nous la recherche de solutions et non de problèmes. À chaque tournant de la route, nous aurons probablement beaucoup de choix et les gens le verront toujours différemment. Nous avons été conditionnés pendant des générations à penser que tout est une question de dualité, que les opinions ne peuvent être combinées, alors qu’en réalité, c’est le cœur du sens commun. Le gilet jaune n’est pas un parti politique, ni un mouvement simplement parce qu’il n’est pas nécessaire de l’être. Les étiquettes qui nous sont attribuées dans notre système politique ne font qu’armer nos convictions et nous rendent incapables de l’évolution de la société. Cela n’a jamais été une tâche facile, mais ce mouvement doit mettre ces identités de côté et reconnaître que cela ne signifie nullement qu’elles sacrifient leurs opinions. La nature évolutive de tout cela a révélé à beaucoup de gens que le meilleur moyen de se faire entendre est de cesser immédiatement de soutenir les politiciens corrompus.

L’HISTOIRE DE LA POLITIQUE D’IMMIGRATION AMERICAINE

Avec le nombre réduit de personnes qui tirent toutes les ficelles, ils ne sont pas loin de contrôler le monde entier. Aussi ce mouvement n’a pas seulement pour objet de rendre la souveraineté aux nations (beaucoup souhaitent voir la fin des Nations Unies), mais surtout de rendre à l’individu sa propre souveraineté. Dans la constitution des Etats Unis, les gens sont sensés détenir un pouvoir absolu au sein de ce pays. Ce mouvement, de différentes manières, n’est pas seulement une “demande de changement”, mais bien d’avertir suffisamment de gens afin d’avoir le pouvoir de le faire effectivement. En usant de stratagèmes comme les ruées bancaires, les grèves, boycotts et manifestations pacifiques nous pouvons absolument faire levier en notre faveur et avoir la loi de notre côté. Avec toutes les générations qui sont privées de connaissances se rapportant à la façon dont les choses fonctionnent ou à quels droits elles possèdent, beaucoup pensent aujourd’hui que c’est impossible de changer les choses sans un dénouement horrible. Ces mêmes membres influents de la cabale dépendent de la fracture des populations en plusieurs petits morceaux. Si tous les citoyens étaient unis, conscients et correctement éduqués, il n’y aurait pas lieu de contester que les citoyens utilisent les documents constitutifs pour corriger un système rapidement défaillant.


En tant que citoyens du monde, ce mouvement a également des implications mondiales. Naturellement, pour résister à la corruption mondiale, il faudra que le monde entier se lève contre elle. La plupart des pays sont actuellement confrontés à une migration à grande échelle de personnes demandant l’asile. En Amérique, cela a été une source de discorde extrême en raison de la divergence d’opinions sur la construction d’un mur frontalier. Au cours du dernier mois, nos citoyens ont lancé une pétition officielle pour répondre aux préoccupations de notre frontière sans construire de mur. Ils ont également offert l’amnistie aux immigrants qui résident actuellement dans notre pays. Nous avons adressé cette question à autant de groupes que nous pouvions traverser les frontières des partis et, par optimisme, il semble que cela puisse susciter une réaction positive. Honnêtement, cela ne résout en rien les raisons pour lesquelles les gens fuient leur pays, contrairement au gilet jaune. Selon l’opinion de nombreux peuples, un mouvement du gilet jaune dans les pays en crise, associé à la fin de la politique étrangère prédatrice axée sur le profit, chaque pays pourrait idéalement être rendu aux citoyens. Nous croyons qu’en encourageant cette idée auprès de chaque pays du monde, nous pouvons donner à tous les citoyens les moyens de mener une vie agréable et de vivre une véritable démocratie.


Pour moi, le mouvement mondial des gilets jaunes vise en partie à rétablir les liens entre nos nations. Je ne connais pas la position des autres pays, mais aux États-Unis, nous nous dirigeons vers un appel à mettre fin à l’ONU. En l’état actuel des choses, aucun citoyen d’aucun pays ne semble avoir le droit de dire qui sert ici alors que son corps détient toujours le pouvoir sur toutes les nations souveraines. Pendant longtemps, les Nations Unies ont été marquées comme si ce n’était pas le cas, même s’il était encore bien fait à l’époque. Un élément important de ce mouvement est la souveraineté individuelle, et surtout que des groupes de personnes non élus ne doivent JAMAIS détenir le pouvoir sur ce sujet. Absolument à long terme si nous voyons cela se produire, il doit y avoir quelque chose pour le remplacer, ainsi que cela devrait être agréable pour toutes les nations. Lorsque vous réfléchissez à ce que l’ONU devrait faire, cela devrait être un bateau pour les peuples de tous les pays prenant des décisions collaboratives qui affectent les gens du monde entier. À l’instar du gouvernement américain, beaucoup estiment que l’ONU joue beaucoup plus dans l’exploitation mondiale que dans la promotion. Les gilets jaunes mondiaux veulent la paix mondiale et ont compris que si NOUS le souhaitons, les gouvernements du monde ne le font généralement pas. En connectant nos mouvements au niveau mondial afin de servir le but de la collaboration, nous pouvons réellement travailler en ce sens.

Rapport d’action: Capitale américaine 2-23-19

Il y a de nombreuses raisons pour lesquelles les gens ne devraient pas se généraliser ni se nommer, mais pour les besoins de cet article, je vais me concentrer sur la manière dont cela peut entraver les progrès. Il y a un peu plus d’un mois, plusieurs membres de notre groupe de gilet jaune ont organisé un événement le 23 février. Naturellement, au départ, j’ai supposé que c’était notre événement, mais mon erreur a ensuite été montrée. Un groupe appelé Roll Call avait essentiellement lancé une pétition pour se présenter dans toutes les capitales ce jour-là. C’est à ce moment que nous avons commencé à organiser notre événement tandem pour la journée de la capitale des nations. Contrairement à ce que l’on entend souvent dans les actualités, nous ne nous sommes pas opposés à ces opposants et n’avons pas formé de contre-mesures à propos de ce pour quoi nous étions en désaccord. Nous avons dépassé le stade dans notre pays et dans le monde où nous pouvons passer du temps à nous disputer pour des problèmes individuels. Nous avons besoin de tous les pouvoirs pour tous, ce qui nécessitera absolument tout le monde.

Nous voulions apporter nos mandats, ou des propositions pour résoudre la liste de nos griefs avec notre gouvernement. Je sais depuis un moment que nous avons tous plus de points communs que nous le pensons, mais il semblait qu’une action audacieuse serait nécessaire si les gens aussi commençaient à voir si cela pouvait être vrai. Lors de ce rassemblement de patriotes, nous avons vu beaucoup de gens qui ont défendu avec véhémence leur désir d’un mur de frontière. Personnellement, je ne pense pas qu’un mur puisse résoudre à lui seul la gravité des problèmes auxquels nous sommes confrontés après des recherches, mais je conviens que notre situation est terriblement dramatique. Le premier amendement protège notre droit à la liberté de pensée et à la liberté de parole et, lors de ces événements, au lieu de nous opposer, les deux groupes ont adopté cette approche. Nous avons pu engager des discussions saines sur la frontière et de nombreuses autres choses lors d’un dîner social la veille au soir. Peu de temps après avoir rencontré les gens la nuit précédant la marche, j’ai trouvé que, même si nous ne voyions pas tout en face, c’étaient des Américains, tout comme moi, qui souhaitaient un changement.


Nous avons entendu de nombreux orateurs de leurs différents groupes présents et on m’a donné deux occasions de parler. La nuit précédente, nous avions montré à certaines personnes des copies de nos mandats avec une réponse positive, et encore une fois lors de ce rassemblement, nous avons constaté que sur la plupart des autres problèmes, les gens avaient beaucoup moins de mal à s’entendre sur des points. Nous l’avions mis en place pour commencer à la capitale et se terminer à la Maison Blanche avec une marche entre les deux. C’était une nouvelle occasion de voir des gens qui soit appelaient à un mur, soit louaient notre président, criaient également pour mettre fin à la haine ou encourageaient tous les citoyens à se rassembler. Beaucoup de choses que nos médias impliquent souvent ou tentent directement d’illustrer étant donné que la nature d’un grand groupe dans notre société semblait être grossièrement mal interprétée et que le vrai problème était peut-être que nos médias n’étaient pas transparents et qu’une discussion saine était bien moins courante de nos jours. .

Pour illustrer cela davantage, nous avons même dû déménager notre deuxième site en raison de la menace de bombe. À l’origine, la police de DC avait déclaré que nous ne pouvions pas marcher et que nous devions voyager par groupes de moins de 25 personnes. Il semble que cette nouvelle les ait amenés à modifier considérablement leur position. Après que cette menace a pris vie, ces agents ont fermé les intersections et bloqué celles-ci pendant la marche. Les organisateurs du côté patriote ont exhorté à maintes reprises les personnes dans la foule à être civiles, respectueuses, à ne pas abandonner et à maintenir une attitude non violente et non destructive tout en progressant. Après la clôture de l’événement, nous avons tous déjeuné ensemble et avons pu discuter un peu plus ensemble. J’ai beaucoup appris de cette expérience qui a vraiment construit sur ce que les gilets jaunes doivent être pour moi. Je comprenais déjà que nous devions regarder au-delà des partis et être un mouvement non politique, mais cela ne semblait pas couvrir tout à fait la communication. Lorsque nous généralisons les gens et supposons que nous les connaissons avant de les rencontrer, nous avons la possibilité de trouver quelqu’un qui pourrait travailler avec nous. J’ai trouvé ici que parfois nous devons être assez courageux pour poser les questions difficiles. Lorsque nous nous approchons de quelqu’un qui a de l’amour dans nos cœurs et nous demandons quelque chose comme «pourquoi voulez-vous un mur?»…… Ou du socialisme? »… Ou« quels autres problèmes vous importent »?», Nous trouverons le plus souvent quelqu’un qui est toujours joli semblable, bien que pas toujours vrai.


L’expérience que j’ai vécue jusqu’à présent est que la plupart des militants, quelle que soit leur identité, essaient eux-mêmes de contribuer à l’amélioration de la nation ou du monde. Il semble que ce ne sont souvent pas les fins pour lesquelles nous ne sommes pas d’accord, mais les moyens ou la route. Nous n’avons pas tous besoin de prendre la même route, comme si nous le faisions en conduisant, personne ne pourrait atteindre sa destination. Nous pouvons tous arriver là où nous devons aller le plus vite en empruntant de nombreuses routes dans des véhicules de toutes les couleurs et cette logique s’applique aussi à la pensée. Les positions plus conflictuelles ou différentes qui sont appliquées à une question avec un engagement de collaborer encouragent les résultats les plus progressifs sans pour autant devenir nos propres obstacles. Après ces expériences, ma foi dans le mouvement a augmenté incroyablement, et ce sera sûrement une aide précieuse. Bien que la notion semble assez logique, il serait terriblement naïf de supposer que cela pourrait être une tâche rapide ou facile à réaliser.

SUIVEZ YVTV INTERNATIONAL POUR TOUTE LA VIDÉO DE CET ÉVÉNEMENT ET BEAUCOUP PLUS!

-Adam Rice

Action Report: U.S. Capital 2-23-19

There are plenty of reasons people shouldn’t generalize or label each other, but for the purpose of this article I’m going to focus on how it can hinder progress. A little over a month ago several members of our yellow vest group kept bringing up an event on February 23rd. Naturally I at first assumed it was our event but was later shown my error. A group called Roll Call had essentially issued a petition to stand at all capitals on this day. It was at this point that we began actually organizing our tandem event for the nations capital day. Contrary to things often seen in the news, we didn’t go to OPPOSE them or form counter-action over things we disagreed on. We are past the point in our nation and the world where we can spend time fighting each other over individual issues. We need all power to all people, and achieving this will absolutely take everyone.
We wanted to bring our mandates, or proposals to solve the list of what our grievances were with our government. I have known for a while that we all have more common ground than we think, but it seemed bold action would be needed if people too were to begin seeing if this might be true. At this rally of patriots we saw many people who vehemently advocated their desire for a border wall. Personally I don’t think a wall alone could solve the gravity of issues we face after doing research, but do agree we have a terribly dire situation. The first amendment protects our right to free thought and speech, and at this events instead of clashing both groups took this approach. We were able to engage in healthy discussions on both the border and many other things the night before at a social dinner. I found soon after meeting the people the night before the march that even though we may not see eye to eye on everything, these were American’s just like me who wanted change.


We heard ample speakers from their various groups in attendance, and I was given two opportunities to speak. We had shown some people copies of our mandates the night before with positive response, and again too at this rally we found on most other issues people had far less trouble agreeing on things. We had it set up to start at the capital and end at the White House with a march in between. It was further eye opening to see people who either called for a wall or praise our president likewise cry out to end hatred, or encourage all to come together. Many things that our media often implies or directly attempts to illustrate as the nature of a large group in our society seemed to be grossly mischaracterized and perhaps the real issue was that our media wasn’t transparent, and healthy discussion is far less common these days.
To further illustrate this, we even had to move our second location due to their being a bomb threat. Originally the DC police had said we could not march, and had to travel in groups of less than 25 people. It seemed that news of this led to them modifying their stance in some very big ways. After this threat came to life these officers closed intersections down and blocked intersections as we marched. The organizers on the patriot side repeatedly urged people in the crowd to be civil, respectful, not litter, and maintain a non-violent and non-destructive stance while moving forward. After the event concluded we all had lunch together and got to talk together a bit more. I learned a whole lot from this experience that really built upon what yellow vests needs to be for me. I understood already that we must look past party, and be a nonpolitical movement but that seemed to not quite cover the communication piece. When we generalize people and assume we know them before we meet them we get in our own way of potentially finding someone who would work with us. I found here that sometimes we have to be brave enough to ask the tough questions. When we approach someone with love in our hearts and ask something like “why do you want a wall?” …”or socialism?”…or “what other issues matter to you”?” we will more often than not find someone still pretty similar, though not always true.


It’s been my experience so far that most activists regardless of identity do themselves try to work at making the nation, or world a better place. It appears that often its not the ends we disagree on but the means, or the road there. We don’t all need to take the same road just as if we did while driving nobody would reach their destination. We can all arrive where we need to go quickest by taking many roads in vehicles of all colors and this logic applies to thought too. The more conflicting or different stances that are applied to an issue with a commitment to collaborate we encourage the most progressive outcomes while also not becoming our own obstacles. After these experiences my faith in the movement grew incredibly, and that will surely be a huge help. Though the notion seems logical enough, it would be terribly naive to assume this could be a quick or easy task to achieve.

FOLLOW YVTV INTERNATIONAL TO SEE ALL THE VIDEOS FROM THE EVENT AND MUCH MORE!

-Adam Rice

February 27, 2019

Gentrification And The Housing Crisis, A Brief Examination Of An Unsustainable System

Gentrification is such a complex issue that effects many people in different ways. I will share a bit of my own experience and then examine a bit how different populations are effected when this happens. In my city we have a historical society that for a long time was enacted to preserve the city’s appearance. With a state that was nicknamed “vacationland” people over the years moved here as it was always an amazing place. Ultimately our city began to see lots of big new buildings pop up with “luxury condos” at astronomical rates. Respectively, the city also started taxing the landlords at a higher rate that these big companies could easily afford. For the smallest landlords they had to charge more due to increased costs and maintenance on properties.
In our city, the historical society and city can also demand that property owners do things that most other cities cant. They can dictate what colors many properties can be painted, what type of windows you use, and even the color brick mortar used. The city was hungry for money, they brought tourists here for years and encouraged wealthy families to move from out of state. When they did, our city councilmen lined their pockets allowing developers to build in our city without any restriction while making it equally impossible for smaller companies to stay afloat. Over the years as buildings fell apart, people were forced to sell their properties to these same companies for much less than they were once worth.
These buildings when they change hands often see mass evictions, as it is legally permissible to do so in order to renovate the building. Often this is justified by the fact the properties no longer meet code and the buyer justifies the action by this. What often happens is people end up in the shelter because there are no apartments they can afford anymore, if at all. It can take half a year or longer to find an affordable apartment and our shelter is now overcrowded. We have 2 teen shelters that are full, 2 full women’s shelters, several full family shelters, a fell “wet shelter”, the walk in shelter (200+ here alone!), and our day shelter has to be converted to sleep many more. The most startling fact is that there are still tent cities, and many sleeping outside as there is still not enough room.
Further problematic, many of these people hold housing vouchers but landlords wont accept them. The process to obtain a voucher can take a year or more as the system is overloaded, and living on the streets that long often results in alcoholism or addiction. Landlords will typically ask things like multiple deposits which subsidies wont pay, charge more than the subsidy will pay, enact credit score requirements, and many more that essentially prevent people from getting an apartment again. The end result is that now in my city, many who once had homes now live at the shelter and there may not even be enough apartments for these people as their homes are now occupied by new residents. In this article I will explain what “steering” is, and how communities are driven out based on race, disability, or religion. Likewise I will examine in further detail some of the practices in rental agencies that keep certain groups out of a home. In all cities where this occurs there are reasons it is allowed to happen, that too will be examined and the housing first model as a way to help many currently victims of the housing crisis. Likewise, we will look at the plights of those barely hanging on, and how many can barely get by anymore while keeping a roof over their head. One cant really talk about gentrification without examining the full scope of the housing crisis, and that goes all the way back to HUD and Ben Carson.

Gentrification is what happens as properties in certain neighborhoods are purchased, and the respective communities are driven out. It is a slow process, properties are acquired a few at a time, and as more people hear about the neighborhood it stems an unsustainable transition. The phenomena of perpetually increasing rents never ends, and one problem becomes many. The initial community can often be displaced leaving many in shelters or on the street. Years down the road, those same people who came to occupy the neighborhood will fact the same problem…unaffordable rents. Racial steering is when either landlords or brokers withhold information from minorities regarding housing, or only show them in certain areas. This same practice is employed also towards people with housing assistance, the poor, the elderly, and the mentally ill. Steering was actually a law until 1917 preventing minorities from living in certain neighborhoods. When Buchanan v. Warley abolished these laws, but they were replaced with covenants that said individual homes couldn’t be purchased by minorities. Until 1950 the National Association of Real Estate Boards mandated that nobody should introduce minorities into white neighborhoods and claimed property values would drop. In 1968 the Fair Housing Act formally outlawed this, and disabilities became protected in 1982. Despite creation of laws steering continues to this day, and studies done between 1989 and 2000 showed that as discrimination decreased, steering increased.

As it stands now, gentrification doesn’t truly describe the complexity of the issue. First off, there are now an excess of luxury units but the majority of working class cannot afford them. The middle and lower class citizens of cities are now often spending at least 30% of their income on rent alone. Since 1960 the median income has only increased 5% where rent has increased 61%. The same study found that homeowners income has increased by 50% but home prices have increased 112%. This Harvard study found that the construction of these luxury properties encouraged private companies to buy properties, evicting tenants and ultimately leading to a rise in homelessness. The fastest rise in price was found to occur in the once affordable units, with rent increasing 50% faster in these places.
Many people have responded to the cost of living in the city and move to a less populated area. Before the recession 1.1 million homes were constructed each year, but since then the most built in a year was 849,000. Currently the last time there were this few homes for sale was 1982. Also now there is a shortage of construction workers with some 200,000 job openings. Likewise, as construction costs increase these same developers only truly turn the type of profit they desire on these more expensive units. As of 2016, more than 50% of homes were large homes with pools, yet “starter homes” only made up 20%. Currently in America roughly 22 cities have homes being sold at 6 times that of the median income. Shockingly, 30 years ago Harvard found that in 72 of the 100 largest cities in America it only took 18 months of median income to purchase a home.
The sad reality too is that even in today’s modern age, it is often the minorities who will experience these things the worst. Since 1987 home ownership rates have increased by 3.6%, however they actually fell by 2.7% in predominantly in black communities. In Hispanic communities there were increases that now have reached a little over 16% respectively. The wealth gap too is worse for minorities, minorities have been found to have half the net worth of white families and are found to be asked to pay more as well. A recent report from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers found that minorities still to this day are obtaining homes through use of “sub-prime” loans. It is found that minorities are much less likely to obtain loans to purchase homes, and due to the cost it often takes this off the table for veterans as well as poor families also. Home ownership is seen the most in those over the age of 65, with the rate dropping in other demographics parallel to their net worth.
Last year a study concluded that the only cities in America where rent growth slowed were the ones that added more units than renters in a year. Last year it took doubling the construction of rental units to reduce rent by only 1%, they created over 10,000 units! Prior to this change rents were increasing by 5% each year from 2015-2017. At this point there are hardly homes that are affordable to the middle class, nor are there apartments left for low income families. Since 1988, there are now 6 million more low income families, and 2.5 million less affordable units. The only way to solve the growing problems with housing, cities need to create more affordable units, but nobody is funding projects for more profit can be found elsewhere. Recently HUD secretary Ben Carson implemented policies that would raise rents for 5 million people, and make rental assistance harder to obtain.

Currently there are lawsuits still open against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which is headed by Ben Carson, for Civil Rights Violations. Recently it was found that Carson had appointed 5 persons to his department, with no previous experience, for salaries between $90,000 and $155,000. In total 24 people have been hired under similar conditions, and the top 70% of employees earn salaries in this range. Even Carson himself, a retired neurosurgeon, has no previous experience in this sector. Since assuming control, many policy initiatives have failed due to employees lack of experience. This however may actually be a good thing as many are not exactly good for citizens. Among these we almost saw rent triple for families, assistance become hard to obtain, and help for the homeless population drop significantly. When Carson assumed duty, the backlog was in the tens on millions of dollars, buildings were in disarray, and he was barely phased. Instead of attempting to ensure buildings were properly maintained, he used an incredibly illegal amount of money to refurbish his office. He even demoted a secretary who refused to help stating that “one cannot even buy a good even buy a good chair for less than $5,000”. While they plotted to cut billions in funding to housing alone, Carson had just bought a $31,000 dining set for his office. Many times Carson has made his stance clear, that he thinks the best thing HUD can do for people is “ensure that living quarters aren’t nice enough for people to want to stay”.
Likewise it shouldn’t be new knowledge to most people who have lived in a city that often landlords have a skewed moral compass when it comes to operations. Often times it can come back to money, either driving out tenants to raise the price or denying business to low income customers. A common practice that can be seen is a landlord refusing to do repairs until a tenant finally moves and they subsequently raise rents more. Landlords will never mention this or include in a lease, but more jurisdictions contain laws that all renters are entitled to an Implied Warranty of Habitability. This means your home must legally be safe, free of lead, mold, radon, and some cities strictly enforce strict building and fire codes. Discriminatory renting is often seen as described above, and many too are not ever told that by law a landlord must give 24 hours notice prior to entering ones unit. It is commonly seen for property to create more units in a building outside what the law even allows, and at times one could be “baited and switched”. Essentially you could see an available unit online that is not actually available, only to be talked into one slightly more expensive. Security deposits too can be both kept via illegal means, or charged at an illegal rates. The important thing to remember is check the laws in your area…stay informed! With someone like Ben Carson at the top of the housing pyramid its no wonder there are so many landlords getting away with these things. Also, if your city has a tenant’s union I would recommend that you join one. The only way renters can acquire enough power in their community to push back against big developers is by banding together.

– Adam Rice

SOURCES

Un Regard En Profondeur Sur L’Histoire De La Politique D’Immigration Américaine Et Sur Les Problèmes Toujours Présents Aux Deux Frontières Internationales

Un aperçu rapide de la politique d'immigration et de son évolution dans l'histoire de l'Amérique

Une grande partie de la tendance observée dans le système d’immigration américain remonte au Hart-Celler, ou à la loi sur l’immigration et la naturalisation du début des années 1960. Auparavant, après la colonisation de l’Amérique par les pèlerins au début du 19e siècle. En 1882, la loi d’exclusion chinoise a été adoptée, marquant la première mesure législative de l’histoire visant à limiter l’immigration aux États-Unis. Avant l’adoption de cette loi, il n’existait pas de point de contrôle d’Ellis Island et chaque État gérait lui-même l’immigration. La chaîne de télévision historique a qualifié ce système de “système fondé sur les quotas”, car il était utilisé avant tout pour favoriser l’immigration légale réservée aux Européens.
À l’époque coloniale, les gens sont venus en Amérique dès les années 1600. En 1619, les 20 premiers esclaves furent amenés en Virginie par bateau et avaient atteint les 700 000 en 1790. En 1808, le Congrès prescrivit que l’importation d’esclaves était illégale, mais l’acte persista encore longtemps. La guerre civile a procuré la liberté à des millions d’esclaves sous contrat en 1865. Au même moment de l’histoire, nous avons vu des millions d’Européens venir en Amérique chercher une vie meilleure. Dans les années 1840, la moitié des immigrants étaient d’origine irlandaise et fuyaient la famine dans leur pays. Selon History Channel et d’autres sources, la plupart de ces personnes se sont installées à proximité des ports dans lesquels elles sont arrivées. On estime que 4,5 millions d’Irlandais sont arrivés en Amérique entre 1840 et 1930. Durant la même période, 5 millions d’Allemands sont venus s’installer ici. dans le Midwest, comme Milwaukee, WI, et environ 25 000 immigrants chinois se sont rendus en Californie pour la ruée vers l’or.
C’est à cette époque de l’histoire que nous avons commencé à constater un tollé général face à l’afflux de personnes dans notre pays. À l’époque, la grande majorité des Américains étaient des protestants d’origine européenne. Les Irlandais étaient des catholiques pratiquants et, à cette époque, le groupe de personnes considéré comme une menace pour la sécurité de l’emploi américain était principalement composé d’Européens catholiques. Dans les années 1850, il y avait un parti politique appelé “Ne rien savoir” qui était ouvertement anti-catholique américain et anti-immigration. En 1865, ce parti tenta de présenter sa candidature à l’ex-président Millard Fillmore, mais il finit troisième. Fillmore avait précédemment hérité du titre de POTUS en tant que vice-président de Zachary Taylor à sa mort. Son mandat l’a éloigné de son parti parce qu’il refusait de mettre fin à l’esclavage dans les États où il était légal et utilisait les ressources fédérales pour rendre les esclaves à leurs propriétaires.
La loi d’exclusion des Chinois a été adoptée en 1882 pour interdire aux Chinois d’immigrer ici. À l’époque, l’Amérique était entrée dans une dépression vers 1870 et la volonté des sino-américains de travailler pour moins était un problème pour la Californie. Chaque État a géré sa propre immigration et, à l’époque, on estimait que la meilleure solution pour atténuer le flux de population en Amérique devait être traitée à l’échelle nationale, et Ellis Island a été créée. En 1890, le président Harrison désigna cet endroit comme point de contrôle officiel. Douze millions de personnes l’empruntèrent entre 1892 et 1954. Au total, entre 1880 et 1920, plus de 20 millions de personnes émigrèrent aux États-Unis de toute l’Europe. millions d’immigrants légaux entrant dans le pays. Après la première guerre mondiale, une législature fut adoptée entre 1917 et 1920 qui créa le test de citoyenneté et les exigences de quotas. Ces lois stipulaient essentiellement que, sur la base des données du recensement annuel, seul un nombre d’immigrants ne dépassant pas 2% de la population de leur nationalité pouvait entrer légalement dans le pays chaque année.
C’est vers 1930 que la Grande Dépression et la Seconde Guerre mondiale ralentirent l’immigration, au point que seulement 6,9% de notre population était née à l’étranger. À ce moment-là, le Congrès a adopté une loi visant à accorder des visas spéciaux aux personnes fuyant l’Union soviétique et ailleurs en Europe. De même, avec la révolution communiste à Cuba, nous avons assisté à un autre afflux important de personnes aux États-Unis. C’est en 1965 que la loi sur l’immigration et la naturalisation a été adoptée et il n’y avait plus de quotas concernant la loi sur l’immigration. C’est à ce moment que l’Amérique a commencé à voir beaucoup plus d’immigrants d’autres pays alors que la loi n’était plus censée favoriser ceux qui venaient des régions protestantes d’Europe occidentale.

Le mouvement des droits civiques des années 1960 a été le principal moteur de ces modifications des lois sur l’immigration. Jusque-là, les lois avaient été motivées par des considérations raciales et, avec la cause soutenue par JFK, il y avait une forte pression pour permettre un traitement égal aux personnes cherchant une vie en Amérique, quel que soit leur lieu de naissance. En 1965, après que Kennedy eut été abattu, la loi fut adoptée, mais elle était perçue comme un changement qui ne bouleverserait pas l’équilibre. On considérait que l’immigration continuerait comme elle l’avait été et que notre pays adopterait simplement une approche plus morale. C’est à ce moment-là que nous sommes passés de quotas donnant la priorité aux Européens à une législature qui favoriserait ceux qui ont des parents citoyens, des personnes ayant des compétences spéciales ou des demandeurs d’asile. Bien qu’il y ait toujours des plafonds par pays et des réglementations en matière de nombre, ce changement a permis à des familles entières de quitter leur pays d’origine pour se réinstaller en Amérique. Entre les Européens qui fuyaient le communisme et les Asiatiques autrefois interdits d’entrée, il y avait plus de 18 millions de cas d’immigration légale dans les 30 ans qui ont suivi la création de cette loi. Au cours des 30 dernières années, moins de 30% des cas avaient été enregistrés. Entre les années 50 et les années 90, le nombre d’immigrants européens était nettement inférieur, mais le nombre d’immigrants en provenance d’Amérique du Sud, du Mexique et d’Asie augmentait régulièrement.
En 1986, la loi sur l’immigration et la réforme a été adoptée, le nombre de personnes entrant illégalement dans le pays par le Mexique et le Canada devenant problématique pour les Américains. L’objectif initial était de renforcer l’application de la politique d’immigration et de faire en sorte qu’il soit assez facile d’immigrer par la voie légale. Cet acte a créé 2 nouveaux programmes d’amnistie pour les personnes déjà sur le sol américain et a été utilisé par plus de 3 millions de personnes à l’époque. En 1990, la loi sur l’immigration élargit la législature écrite en 1965 et porta le nombre maximal de personnes à 700 000 par an. Elle appelait à faire venir plus de personnes de pays qui n’étaient pas très présents en Amérique pour encourager la diversité. Comme dans les années 1800, une autre récession s’est produite à la fin des années 1990 et beaucoup d’Américains ont exprimé leur mécontentement face à la perte d’emplois au profit de non-citoyens, ainsi qu’à la manière dont les programmes de protection sociale ne semblaient généralement pas privilégiés à cette époque. C’est alors en 1996 que la loi sur la réforme de l’immigration illégale et les lois sur la responsabilité des immigrés ont été adoptées.
Après le 11 septembre, le Department of Homeland Security a été formé et a pris la direction de l’application des lois sur l’immigration conformément à ce qui a été décrit ci-dessus. Certaines modifications ont été apportées mais, à ce jour, les non-citoyens entreront principalement dans le pays avec un visa temporaire ou avec un statut permanent. Ceux qui reçoivent une carte verte peuvent finalement devenir citoyens et d’autres entrer légalement sur une base temporaire.

LA GUERRE MEXICAINE-AMÉRICAINE DÉFINIT NOTRE FRONTIÈRE SUD ET LES RÉSULTATS DE L'ACQUISITION DE PLUSIEURS ÉTATS AMÉRICAINS

L’histoire de nos voisins du Sud est longue et les mains des Amériques ne sont absolument pas propres en la matière. Entre 1846 et 1849, le président Polk voulait pratiquer le destin manifeste et coloniser au sud de la frontière texane. À l’époque, le Texas était son propre pays puisqu’il combattait le Mexique pour sa liberté déclarée par le traité de Velasco. À l’époque, le Congrès mexicain n’avait jamais ratifié le document et, en 1845, les États-Unis et le Mexique étaient aux prises avec une véritable guerre et les deux pays tentaient d’étendre leur territoire. À l’époque, nous avons fini par saisir plusieurs États du Mexique dans le cadre de nos conditions de paix. Pendant longtemps, beaucoup de Mexicains ont vécu dans ces États comme ils l’ont toujours fait, mais obtenir la citoyenneté n’a pas été facile. En 1955, le président Eisenhower a lancé l’opération Wetback, la plus grande déportation massive de l’histoire des États-Unis. 1,3 million de Mexicains ont été déportés principalement des mêmes États que ceux qui avaient été saisis du Mexique il y a près d’un siècle. Dans le même temps, des programmes communs contrôlaient leurs visas dans le pays, mais le Mexique commençait à connaître une pénurie de main-d’œuvre et souhaitait que leurs citoyens retournent chez eux. Le gouvernement mexicain de l’époque avait parrainé un programme de type militaire avec notre patrouille des frontières pour renvoyer toutes ces personnes au Mexique. Ce faisant, une propagande anti-immigrée et anti-mexicaine à grande échelle a été utilisée pour diriger les citoyens contre ces personnes, qui avaient déjà eu l’autorisation légale de résider ici.
Au cours des années 1940 et 1950, on a dit à de nombreux Américains que les citoyens résidant dans les États du sud-ouest du pays y étaient illégalement. À cette époque, ce n’était pas la vérité et c’était un récit utilisé pour générer la peur de soutenir le gouvernement mexicain dans le retour de leurs ressortissants. En 1942, les États-Unis lancèrent l’Opération Bracero, ou programme conjoint de main-d’œuvre agricole. À l’époque, de nombreux immigrants mexicains faisaient l’objet de discrimination au Texas en raison de la poursuite des hostilités. Ce programme visait à amener un nombre considérable de personnes à des visas de travail temporaires contre indemnisation garantie. Le Mexique ne voulait pas que ses citoyens travaillent au Texas et, de 1942 à 1947, l’État n’a pas été autorisé à y participer. Beaucoup d’employeurs ne voulant pas payer les salaires garantis, les Mexicains ont alors commencé à se faufiler à la frontière et à travailler au Texas en tant que citoyens illégaux, tandis que le programme Bracero se développait ailleurs aux États-Unis, comme la Californie à l’époque. Des millions de personnes qui sont arrivées ici entre 1942 et 1964. Le Texas, qui autorisait des travailleurs sans papiers à travailler dans leurs fermes, irritait ceux qui étaient ailleurs aux États-Unis. En 1953, le président Eisenhower tenta d’utiliser la garde nationale pour déporter des personnes à grande échelle dans l’espoir le retour de beaucoup de ces emplois aux Américains et contribuer à la pénurie de main-d’œuvre au Mexique. La loi américaine l’a interdit, et il a fallu recourir à la patrouille des frontières un an plus tard.
Une partie de la tactique utilisée à l’époque était documentée: ces mêmes agents menaçaient les propriétaires d’entreprise de participer au programme Bracero. Lorsque l’opération Wetback a eu lieu, elle reposait en grande partie sur la peur et de nombreuses personnes ici légalement ont été expulsées. Le programme Bracero a été poursuivi jusqu’à épuisement des fonds en 1964, mais les agriculteurs mexicains, tout comme les exploitations américaines, étaient devenus, dans une certaine mesure, tributaires de ce programme. Les agriculteurs ont demandé au Congrès de maintenir le programme, mais sans succès. Les implications durables de ces programmes ont été une immigration continue. Lorsque les agents des patrouilles frontalières ont déporté des personnes vers le Mexique, cela a créé un vide en matière de main-d’œuvre qui ne serait finalement comblé que par davantage de travailleurs sans papiers, car il a toujours été rentable de le faire et contournait les lois du travail dans certaines industries. En gros, en créant ce programme qui bâtissait notre secteur agricole sur le dos des travailleurs migrants et en excluant le Texas, ils donnaient aux agriculteurs de l’époque un moyen facile de devenir dépendants des économies réalisées grâce à l’embauche de clandestins. À mesure que le temps passait et que notre économie ressentait de plus en plus de tensions, nous avons constaté de nouvelles poussées en faveur de la déportation. Le problème de la frontière mexicaine est complexe, car l’histoire nous a toujours montré que des entreprises employaient des travailleurs sans papiers parallèlement à celles qui entraient légalement. De même, dans la mesure où ces programmes de travail n’existent que sous statut de citoyenneté temporaire, il en résulterait également des personnes qui dépassent la durée de validité du visa et sont pénalisées du fait que les lois initiales n’ont pas été mises en place de manière aussi logique qu’elles auraient pu l’être. Au fil des années, alors qu’il devenait la norme de traverser la frontière pour se rendre au travail, il était également devenu normal d’utiliser la frontière sud pour le trafic de drogue.

L'AUGMENTATION DE LA CRIMINALITÉ À NOTRE FRONTIÈRE SUD ET LA MANIÈRE DE LA CIA

Dans un article sur l’Institute for Policy Studies, il est question de l’histoire de la CIA et de ses “contre gangs”, où notre gouvernement a effectivement facilité la vente de drogues en Amérique grâce à l’utilisation de la CIA. Dans les années 1980, nous finançions une guerre secrète contre le gouvernement nicaraguayen en vendant de la cocaïne colombienne à Los Angeles. En 1996, le journaliste Gary Webb a pris un an pour retracer tout le réseau et a découvert que les conséquences durables de ce que la CIA avait fait avec Rick Ross à l’époque étaient de relier à jamais les cartels aux gangs de rue californiens. Au fil du temps, le reste de notre pays était un territoire inexploité. Ce même journaliste a même découvert que la plupart des armes automatiques utilisées par les gangs provenaient de ces mêmes marchands de la CIA.
Dans un article différent de Lawfare, une sociologue, Natalia Mendoza, parle de l’histoire du trafic de drogue et de migrants à la frontière mexicaine. Comme elle le dit si bien, ces métiers ont permis aux cartels de s’emparer de tout le pouvoir sur de vastes zones et d’employer des «milices permanentes» aux mêmes endroits. Le long de la frontière, la contrebande avait été tellement normalisée en 2005 que la plupart des habitants de certaines zones avaient lieu. Avec une période économique difficile et une agriculture qui n’arrive plus à joindre les deux bouts, beaucoup ont commencé à participer à ces activités de différentes manières. Jusqu’en 2009, ce n’était pas aussi violent, explique-t-elle, comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui pour ces personnes. Nombreux étaient ceux qui aideraient le commerce de la drogue à conserver leur indépendance et leur domicile sans avoir à envisager un déménagement aux États-Unis. Jusqu’en 2009, ces citoyens mexicains étaient autorisés à travailler en tant qu’entrepreneurs indépendants dans le commerce de la drogue, mais la guerre contre la drogue fut finalement militarisée. Tous les habitants de ces villes ont été mis sur la liste de paie et sont devenus des employés permanents. Les villes de contrebande ont été militarisées.
Jusqu’en 2009 également, la contrebande de drogues et de personnes constituaient des activités distinctes et personne n’a revendiqué la propriété des tunnels. Il était généralement acceptable pour quiconque de les utiliser à condition que rien ne soit endommagé au cours du processus. En 2010, tant de personnes franchissaient la frontière illégalement, le processus s’est attiré l’attention. Les cartels de la drogue ont donc pris la décision de réglementer le processus. Les cartels ont créé un système de redevances visant à ralentir la migration et à en tirer profit, ce qui a entraîné des patrouilles régulières de la milice des cartels du côté mexicain de la frontière. Les cartels gèrent des frais pour quiconque souhaite également faire le trafic dans ces villes et utilisent de l’argent pour payer la police et les représentants du gouvernement. En réaction aux mesures que nous avons prises contre les cartels, cela les a amenés à centraliser leurs opérations et à devenir une force difficile à déplacer de leur position actuelle au sommet de la chaîne alimentaire.
L’aboutissement de nombreuses choses au cours de plusieurs décennies a non seulement établi la demande en Amérique, mais a également alimenté un réseau criminel grandissant au sud de la frontière. Au début, nous avons saisi des terres du Mexique comme butin de guerre et adopté un programme mal rédigé pour utiliser la main-d’œuvre afin de justifier l’octroi de nombreux visas temporaires. Au fil du temps, beaucoup ont été intentionnellement introduits ici dans le cadre de ces mêmes programmes avec des exigences de salaire obligatoires suffisamment élevées pour que cela incite réellement ces mêmes entreprises à embaucher des personnes illégales. Lorsque notre gouvernement a réagi aux symptômes et non aux problèmes sous-jacents, les déportations massives n’ont jamais empêché les entrées illégales. Dans le même temps, notre partenariat avec certains cartels de trafic de drogue pour financer des coups d’État au sud a en fait aidé nombre de ces sicarios à établir un réseau qui existe encore à ce jour. Au moment où le problème est devenu incontrôlable, notre réponse a seulement abouti à la centralisation de ces groupes et à leur devenir beaucoup plus dangereux.

Il existe plusieurs types de traite des êtres humains, ils se produisent régulièrement aux deux frontières internationales et constituent une terrible crise.

De même, à la frontière sud, le trafic d’enfants pose de nombreux problèmes. Lorsque des mineurs non accompagnés d’autres pays arrivent ici, ils sont transférés dans un programme qui tentera de les installer avec des membres de leur famille. Si l’enfant vient du Mexique ou du Canada, il est soumis à un simple filtrage conformément à la loi sur la protection des victimes de la traite et est souvent renvoyé dans son pays d’origine ou invité à revenir dans les 48 heures. Lors d’un examen récent, il a été constaté que les agents chargés de ces dépistages sont souvent sous-qualifiés et que le processus en lui-même n’est pas suffisamment approfondi pour déterminer si les enfants qui traversent la frontière sont les seuls victimes de la traite. Dans un article du Guardian, une femme nommée Maria explique comment elle s’est retrouvée dans les cartels à 16 ans et comment tout un réseau d’enfants vendus par ces mêmes groupes. Dans la ville de Juarez, des violences se sont produites depuis les années 1990, alors que deux cartels se disputaient le territoire. Des milliers de femmes et d’enfants ont disparu et ont été retrouvés morts. Elle raconte qu’on lui avait promis un vrai travail, mais qu’elle avait été droguée et vendue pour du sexe et qu’elle avait vu des personnes brûlées vives et battues pour avoir résisté. Elle raconte des moments où les Américains riches contactaient les cartels ayant besoin d’enfants, kidnappaient des enfants mexicains pour les revendre à une date ultérieure. On estime qu’environ 20 000 femmes et enfants sont amenés de l’autre côté de la frontière uniquement à la suite du trafic d’êtres humains.
À l’heure actuelle, les cartels se sont tellement développés au sud de la frontière qu’ils ont maintenant besoin de différencier les types de trafic. Premièrement, il existe des services de coyotes qui facturent plusieurs milliers de dollars pour amener simplement les gens de l’autre côté où ils espèrent commencer une nouvelle vie. Cela ne signifie nullement de savoir où ils se retrouvent. Les personnes qui ne se retrouvent pas en sécurité de l’autre côté peuvent finir par être vendues en tant que propriété à un acheteur américain, ce qui peut arriver aux adultes et aux enfants. Enfin, il ya le commerce du sexe dans lequel la prostitution aux États-Unis est liée au cartel qui fait passer en contrebande des personnes de l’autre côté de la frontière pour travailler dans l’industrie du sexe illégale aux États-Unis. Le trafic de travailleurs du sexe à travers nos frontières internationales est la troisième source de revenus des cartels après l’importation de drogues. Il est très difficile d’établir des statistiques exactes sur les entreprises criminelles secrètes, mais on estimait qu’en 2004, 17 500 personnes auraient été victimes de la traite aux États-Unis en tant que prostituées. De même, une étude réalisée en 2003 a révélé que les États-Unis étaient la deuxième destination des réseaux internationaux de traite des êtres humains. Ces chiffres n’incluent pas les citoyens américains victimes des mêmes réseaux et, en 2006, une étude a révélé que 25 647 femmes de 8 pays différents avaient été introduites clandestinement dans le commerce du sexe par l’Institut national de la justice.

Les victimes finissent par se retrouver aux États-Unis de nombreuses façons, mais ce qui est souvent le cas, c’est que les documents juridiques d’une personne sont utilisés à maintes reprises pour plusieurs passages à la frontière et non par des fonctionnaires. Parmi les autres tactiques utilisées, citons les faux documents, les visas de fiancé et les passages à la frontière carrément illégaux. Les modes d’introduction clandestine des victimes dans le pays changent constamment et posent un problème croissant aux autorités frontalières. Au cours des dernières années, on n’a pas beaucoup parlé dans les nouvelles de la façon dont la frontière canadienne peut tout aussi bien être utilisée pour atteindre ces mêmes objectifs dans les réseaux criminels. Une grande partie des frontières du nord traversent des zones inhabitées qui ne font pas l’objet de patrouilles directes par les autorités et une grande partie des zones habitées se trouvent sur des terres tribales où la patrouille frontalière américaine n’a pas le pouvoir de surveiller la traite des êtres humains. Plusieurs études ont été menées sur les facteurs de risque de trafic aux frontières canadiennes et, souvent, les gens se rendent d’abord au Canada pour des raisons telles que le travail ou l’école, bien que de nombreuses victimes aient été découvertes à l’origine comme des danseuses érotiques. Ils seraient ensuite transportés en voiture, en bateau, etc., à la frontière pour rencontrer leurs clients. On a constaté que le Canada était le principal sujet d’assaut des victimes de la circulation en Asie de l’Est et en Russie. Au Canada, les victimes de la traite à des fins sexuelles sont généralement considérées comme des prostituées et sont généralement déportées et empêchées d’obtenir la citoyenneté. Plus récemment, le Canada a offert aux personnes classées comme victimes la possibilité d’obtenir un visa de 6 mois à 3 ans pour obtenir un traitement et un travail. Toutefois, un casier judiciaire empêche cela, ce qui est généralement inévitable une fois que la traite a été effectuée suffisamment longtemps.
L’asile est offert à certaines victimes de la traite au Canada, et les services qui leur sont finalement rendus peuvent être très différents selon l’endroit où vous vous trouvez. Le Canada ne dispose pas des données les plus complètes sur les statistiques de la traite comme sur le Mexique. De nombreuses études portant spécifiquement sur la traite à des fins sexuelles ont montré la probabilité que le Mexique soit la principale source de victimes de ces réseaux. En 2005, notre département estimait que 70% des victimes de la traite à des fins sexuelles étaient originaires du Mexique et que 50% d’entre elles étaient également des mineurs qui étaient également utilisés pour des relations sexuelles. De nombreuses études établissant l’origine des victimes révèlent souvent que les victimes sont souvent emmenées dans des régions pauvres du sud du pays, et que 30% des victimes de la traite en provenance du Mexique sont probablement originaires d’Amérique centrale. La migration forcée est l’un des principaux facteurs de risque contribuant à devenir une victime de la traite à des fins sexuelles. Lorsque la violence des cartels et l’instabilité du gouvernement poussent les gens à fuir leur pays, ils se retrouvent souvent isolés et pris pour cible lors du transit. Là où ces personnes sont souvent sans papiers, il y a beaucoup d’arrêts sur la manière dont elles ou leurs enfants peuvent rapidement se retrouver pris au piège d’un cauchemar comme un anneau sexuel au sein d’un cartel.

Bien que les États-Unis déportent toujours absolument de nombreuses victimes de traite à des fins sexuelles sur la base des registres d’arrestation qu’ils ont obtenus pendant leur captivité, il existe encore deux options pour les victimes. Le visa T existe pour fournir temporairement aux victimes des services de santé et une admissibilité à l’emploi. Environ 1 000 des 5 000 visas autorisés sont utilisés chaque année. Ce visa nécessite une coopération avec les poursuites et une possibilité de résidence permanente, lorsque le visa U n’offre rien de permanent, ni un accès à des prestations de travail et de santé. Dans un exposé PBS sur la contrebande à la frontière, ils décrivent comment, chaque jour, plus de 100 000 personnes traversent le port de San Ysidro et que le trafic de ce type entrave considérablement la capacité des agents de police à examiner en profondeur les informations d’identification des personnes entrant dans le pays. En raison de l’arriéré d’affaires concernant ce type de crimes, les passeurs n’ont souvent que très peu recours.

Le moyen le plus facile de traverser la frontière est de corrompre les agents des services frontaliers. Un agent du FBI qui a été interrogé a parlé de la montée d’agents corrompus aux frontières dans les ports. Au port d’Otay Mesa, un agent surnommé El Guero avait été découvert comme faisant partie d’un réseau de passeurs clandestins en raison de l’info de l’informateur. Un ancien agent de la marine et décoré avec 16 ans d’expérience avait été attiré par une relation sexuelle avec une passeuse et avait fini par se faire exploser avec elle à la suite de l’enquête. Au cours des cinq dernières années, plus de 100 incidents similaires ont eu lieu et il y a 200 affaires en cours concernant la corruption à la frontière sud. L’arriéré ne se limite pas à de simples affaires de corruption ou de traite. En janvier 2017, il restait 225 846 affaires en suspens devant les tribunaux de l’immigration, et les affaires en attente porteraient le nombre à plus de 1 000 000! L’ajout de plus de juges a augmenté le nombre de dossiers fermés de 3,9%, soit 215 569 personnes. En 2017, les tribunaux d’immigration étaient seuls en retard depuis 5 ans en raison de la lourdeur du système et du manque de ressources. Au taux actuel de clôture des affaires, il faudrait près de quatre ans pour clore toutes les affaires en instance devant les tribunaux de l’immigration, avec si peu de juges disponibles par rapport à la demande …

DEFINING [REFUGEE, MIGRANT, AND ASYLUM SEEKER], THE POLICIES SURROUNDING THEM, ALSO THE HISTORY OF CARAVANS AND PART OF WHY THEY HAVE GROWN IN SIZE

En octobre dernier, un article de Voice of San Diego parlait beaucoup des caravanes de migrants du point de vue de l’information. Comme discuté plus tôt, de nombreux facteurs peuvent amener les personnes à fuir leur pays pour chercher une vie meilleure en Amérique et voyager en nombre est le moyen le plus sûr d’éviter les mêmes trafiquants énumérés ci-dessus. Ces caravanes se sont produites pendant des années sans trop de discussions et elles soulignent que l’attention qu’elles reçoivent ces derniers temps est directement liée à la taille de la plus grande caravane à ce jour. Les caravanes se sont formées à l’origine lorsque des mères d’Amérique centrale se sont rassemblées pour retracer le voyage que leurs enfants avaient été enlevés afin de sensibiliser davantage à la question. Ils s’appellent également Viacrucis Migrante, ou stations émigrées de la croix. Souvent, ils allaient à Pâques avec leur excursion pour comparer leurs souffrances à celles de Jésus. En avril, la caravane a été organisée par un groupe de défense des droits appelé Pueblos Sin Fronteras. En raison de la dégradation de la situation dans leur pays et de la militarisation accrue des deux côtés de la frontière, la nécessité pour des groupes plus importants de rester en sécurité en transit est un problème croissant pour de nombreuses raisons. .
L’un des arguments avancés est que l’attention des médias sur les caravanes elles-mêmes et la position de Trump sur celles-ci sont un autre facteur contribuant aux caravanes plus grandes. Avant que Trump ne soit président, les caravanes n’étaient jamais vraiment un problème qui a attiré l’attention du public, et nombreux sont ceux qui pensent que ses tweets ont permis de mettre en lumière la situation des personnes dans ces caravanes. Auparavant, il était rare qu’une caravane apparaisse dans les médias américains. Récemment, les gens peuvent en voir la retransmission en direct et les médias sociaux sont utilisés pour faire entrer plus de gens dans les caravanes existantes. Ils parlent de la caravane qui a quitté le Honduras et de la façon dont elle est passée de quelques centaines à plusieurs milliers de personnes grâce à l’attention des médias et aux médias sociaux.
El Salvador, le Guatemala et le Honduras sont historiquement des sources continues de personnes migrant vers les États-Unis dans des groupes en quête d’une vie meilleure que celle de leur pays d’origine. Entre la violence, la famine, les difficultés économiques ou le simple fait d’avoir de la famille dans les États, les raisons pour lesquelles les gens partent ne manquent pas. Une grande partie de l’instabilité dans ces mêmes régions peut également être attribuée à la guerre froide où notre implication dans plusieurs pays a laissé des régions déstabilisées qui ont laissé des effets négatifs qui persistent encore à ce jour. Ces pays ne sont pas non plus les seuls à engendrer de grandes caravanes de migrants, entre la pauvreté très commune, la violence et la politique étrangère américaine, aucun endroit au sud du Texas n’est à l’abri des vastes problèmes qui conduisent les gens vers le nord de façon réaliste. Au Honduras seulement, le coup d’Etat de 2009 dans leur pays a eu pour résultat une violence à grande échelle à l’égard des femmes, qui était rarement vue auparavant. Les familles ont décidé de mettre leurs enfants en sécurité d’ici à 2014 et c’est alors que ce même exode a eu pour résultat que des enfants ont été retenus sur des bases militaires à la frontière sud. Les problèmes s’aggravant dans ces mêmes pays, la migration aussi. Au bout d’un certain temps, l’attention fut finalement portée sur les enfants détenus à la frontière. Statistiquement, il est noté que même si les caravanes sont de plus en plus grandes, le nombre de personnes réputées traverser légalement ou illégalement est à peu près le même. Il est à noter que l’utilisation des caravanes est davantage un changement tactique visant à assurer leur propre sécurité en transit.
Les États-Unis ont toujours accueilli des demandeurs d’asile de pays en guerre ou en catastrophe naturelle, et c’est dans les années 1980 qu’une approche standardisée à l’égard des réfugiés a été mise en œuvre. À partir du président Obama, alors que la situation au Moyen-Orient continuait à s’aggraver, le système d’immigration américain a commencé à approcher les réfugiés avec une appréhension accrue. En réalité, il y a une différence entre un “migrant”, un “réfugié” et un “demandeur d’asile”. Lorsque le terme «migrant» est utilisé de manière plus générale, le terme «réfugié» est défini à la fois par la loi américaine et par la Convention de 1951 sur les réfugiés comme un migrant qui a été ou craint une persécution fondée sur [la race, la religion, la nationalité, la politique ou un groupe social]. Les réfugiés chercheront à entrer dans un pays différent, tandis que les demandeurs d’asile demanderont ensuite l’asile avec des protocoles différents. La première loi adoptée pour accepter les réfugiés a accueilli 650 000 personnes après la Seconde Guerre mondiale et s’est poursuivie par la suite, mais en 1980, un effort fédéral officiel a été lancé pour lutter contre la réinstallation des réfugiés.

La loi sur les réfugiés de 1980 a officiellement créé le programme américain d’admission des réfugiés après que le Sud-Vietnam eut été saisi par un dictateur communiste. Un appel a été lancé pour créer un système susceptible de faciliter la nécessité de continuer à accueillir des réfugiés des conflits continus qui surviennent dans le monde entier. Avec ce projet de loi, le président Carter a entamé les procédures permettant de contrôler, d’admettre et d’aider à installer les réfugiés qu’il a également définis officiellement. Cet acte a également augmenté le nombre de personnes pouvant être acceptées à 50 000 et autorisé POTUS à autoriser des nombres plus importants par ordre exécutif. Le nombre de personnes utilisant le programme a considérablement diminué au fil des ans, mais en réalité, il semble fluctuer, car un nombre important de réfugiés ne se manifestera que par des conflits extrêmes dans le pays d’origine. En 2016, le président Obama a approuvé l’admission de 5 000 réfugiés supplémentaires par rapport aux 80 000 déjà acceptés en provenance de Syrie et a suggéré que ce nombre soit porté à 110 000. Le président Trump a indiqué que le nombre de personnes ne serait que de 50 000. À ce stade, il devrait atteindre son plafond le plus bas (30 000 réfugiés par an).
La première étape du processus consiste à s’inscrire auprès du Haut-Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés. Ce bureau effectuera une première sélection, rassemblera des documents et dirigera la personne vers un centre d’assistance à la réinstallation. Le demandeur sera ensuite interrogé dans l’un des 9 endroits du monde et sera minutieusement vérifié par rapport aux bases de données du Renseignement américain. Dans les 18 à 24 mois qui suivent, s’il n’ya pas de problème, la personne sera autorisée à entrer aux États-Unis. Le DHS, le DHHS et le PRM sont les organismes qui assistent les réfugiés une fois dans le pays. Le département d’État supervise le programme d’accueil et de placement qui finance leur loyer et leurs dépenses de base. Après 90 jours, le DHHS assume son autorité en fournissant des ressources à long terme, un soutien financier, etc. Le gouvernement fédéral détient l’autorité sur l’endroit où les réfugiés peuvent s’installer après avoir été admis, et il existe 190 lieux approuvés en Amérique. De nos jours, en ce qui concerne les réfugiés, le pacte de migration des Nations unies est souvent à l’étude. Sur leur site Web, ils la décrivent comme le tout premier texte législatif mondial visant à réglementer la migration à l’échelle mondiale de manière organisée. Le site Web indique que les mêmes politiques ne sont pas juridiquement contraignantes et sont fondées sur la «souveraineté de l’État». La plainte commune qui semble actuellement émaner de plusieurs pays est que tout organisme étranger demandant à un pays de faire respecter ses lois serait la définition exacte du terme “portant atteinte à la souveraineté d’une nation”. Personnellement, je m’intéresse davantage à la raison pour laquelle un pacte formerait ce genre de chose si rien n’était juridiquement contraignant.

EN CONCLUSION ... UNE PÉTITION POUR DES SOLUTIONS TANGIBLES

En fin de compte, l’effet cumulatif de la politique frontalière et de la politique en matière d’immigration, passée et actuelle, a laissé un système extrêmement efficace. Notre propre implication dans les cartels leur a non seulement permis de prospérer dans notre pays, mais leur a également fourni les moyens de devenir une force menaçante aussi proche de chez eux. De même, une grande partie de l’instabilité qui engendre de grandes fluctuations chez les réfugiés demandeurs d’asile peut également être attribuée aux opérations à l’étranger dans lesquelles nous avons été impliqués. de mettre en place une infrastructure qui dépendait de la main-d’œuvre des citoyens d’autres pays, nous avons nous-mêmes jeté les bases du travail sans fin des travailleurs sans papiers. Dans la quête d’argent de notre oligarchie d’entreprise, où les riches détiennent le pouvoir sur les lois, de nombreux secteurs de notre pays ont permis et favorisé l’immigration clandestine, car ils permettent de réaliser des bénéfices bien plus importants. Le trafic de drogue dans notre pays a été initialement aidé par nos propres agences de renseignement. Et, que cela soit toujours le cas ou non, il est clairement évident que ce que la CIA avait alors pensé être une bonne idée ne l’était clairement pas. Maintenant, nous voyons d’innombrables drogues envahir nos rues, des enfants kidnappés vendus au marché noir et des milliers chaque année vendus à des fins d’esclavage sexuel et pénétrant dans notre pays en tant que prostituées. Les problèmes liés à ces cartels ne se limitent pas à l’Amérique du Sud. D’autres réseaux mondiaux ont appris à exploiter notre frontière nord, qui passe régulièrement inaperçue ou patrouillée.
L’Amérique a une longue histoire avec des mouvements périodiques qui repoussent les normes d’immigration actuelles. Il arrive souvent que le nombre de demandeurs d’asile augmente considérablement, ce qui entraîne des difficultés économiques chez eux et des dépenses accrues dans des cas comme une guerre étrangère ou une intervention militaire. Souvent, les citoyens de beaucoup de ces époques se sont d’abord attaqués aux personnes qui ont émigré ici et ont recommencé. Souvent, l’arrivée de nouveaux travailleurs sur le marché libre, disposés à fournir le même service à un coût réduit, crée un désagrément, car les travailleurs américains déjà en difficulté constatent qu’ils sont incapables de facturer autant pour le même service. Grâce aux lois du travail créées après la grande dépression et à l’augmentation du nombre de syndicats, l’immigration légale ne crée plus les mêmes difficultés qu’au XIXe siècle. Le problème le plus important à présent est qu’une personne de l’extérieur des États-Unis qui entre illégalement prend le dessus sur le monde du travail, car elle peut faire payer moins et ramener à la maison le même montant net en ne payant pas d’impôts. pour de nombreuses grandes entreprises pour cette raison et que l’employeur n’a pas à fournir d’avantages. Chaque fois dans l’histoire, il y a eu beaucoup de pression en faveur d’une réforme de la politique d’immigration, ce qui a eu une forte corrélation avec les emplois. Bien que les circonstances aient été différentes à chaque fois, il en a résulté en fin de compte l’emploi et les difficultés économiques. Ces dernières années, la sécurité et la sûreté des frontières ont été beaucoup plus préoccupantes. De nombreux cartels ont déclaré publiquement que, peu importe ce que font les États-Unis, ils continueront de fonctionner.

Dans le débat général sur les travailleurs non menaçants qui traversent de manière illégale et ne devrait pas le faire, on oublie souvent que la sécurité des frontières est nécessaire pour lutter contre les problèmes graves pour lesquels les efforts en ce moment n’aident en rien. Les drogues entrant illégalement dans notre pays, le trafic d’êtres humains, la corruption des patrouilles de frontière et le dépistage approprié des victimes de trafic nécessitent non seulement des enquêtes approfondies, mais aussi une formation, du personnel supplémentaire, et bien plus encore. Si le trafic d’êtres humains n’est pas combattu par un renforcement de la sécurité, des milliers de femmes et d’enfants continueront de mourir chaque année au cours de leurs excursions, et seront massacrés directement par des gangs pour diverses raisons. L’Amérique a définitivement resserré la sécurité à la frontière ces dernières années, mais, à vrai dire, une bonne politique frontalière serait à la fois une réduction du nombre de passages illégaux et un système capable de traiter toutes ses demandes d’asile annuelles la même année. De même, un système fonctionnel ayant accès à nos capacités de données devrait également être en mesure de faciliter les demandes des véritables réfugiés dans le besoin en moins de deux ans. Les politiques actuelles nuisent à toutes les personnes concernées tant que des mesures ciblées ne sont pas prises pour mettre fin à l’embauche de travailleurs sans papiers, elles seront présentées ici comme des pions pour les entreprises américaines et ne seront renvoyées dans leur pays d’origine que pour des raisons juridiques. la citoyenneté à l’avenir. Nos dirigeants nous promettent des solutions à ces problèmes et pourtant, nous ne voyons aucun progrès. Non seulement les travailleurs américains sont toujours frustrés, mais les cartels transfrontaliers nuisent quotidiennement à de nombreuses personnes. Les citoyens veulent une frontière sécurisée, non seulement pour leur propre sécurité, mais aussi parce qu’au fil des ans, il y a eu une corrélation directe entre sécurité des frontières et changement positif. Alors que les médias se concentraient sur les travailleurs sans-papiers, le trafic transfrontalier ralentissait considérablement. De même, à mesure que les patrouilles frontalières augmentaient, de nombreuses statistiques diminuaient. Une frontière sécurisée assure une réduction de la traite des êtres humains et assure la sécurité des Américains vivant non loin d’une activité de gangs constante.

De même, alors que le monde semble se diriger vers une nouvelle période de guerre et de chaos, nos frontières ne sont nullement dotées en personnel ni en moyens de défense en cas d’invasion étrangère. Depuis très longtemps, aucune guerre n’a eu lieu sur le sol américain. Si un tel événement se produisait soudainement, il serait désastreux pour ceux qui y vivent. Dans l’état actuel des choses, l’effectif actuel à la frontière ne peut dissuader les activités criminelles de routine qui perdurent depuis des années. Cela ne peut être qu’un indicateur clair de l’état de préparation de nos défenses si nous sommes confrontés à la force militaire. Nos soldats étant actuellement ligotés dans de nombreux endroits du monde, nous sommes confrontés à un nombre inimaginable de scénarios, auxquels nous ne sommes absolument pas préparés. Le seul moyen de répondre aux préoccupations de sécurité et aux crimes touchant les Américains et les autres pays consiste à modifier la politique actuelle de manière équitable pour les immigrants et les réfugiés, tout en prenant en compte les préoccupations valables des citoyens existants. De même, les erreurs des générations précédentes ne peuvent être répétées et des mesures actives doivent être prises pour s’attaquer aux causes profondes et non aux symptômes. L’histoire a suffisamment prouvé que l’expulsion n’arrête pas l’immigration clandestine. Grâce aux réformes de politique étrangère, les régions peuvent à nouveau être stabilisées de manière à créer un environnement dont les citoyens n’ont plus besoin de fuir. De même, la politique intérieure exige une réforme qui impose des sanctions lourdes et indésirables aux entreprises qui embauchent encore des travailleurs sans papiers. Ces entreprises doivent être davantage perçues comme des auteurs d’un cycle qui blesse autant les migrants que les américains. Les sanctions imposées aux entreprises américaines qui utilisent ces tactiques pourraient non seulement limiter le nombre de personnes se trouvant en dehors de la loi, mais aussi fournir un moyen de financer le règlement du retard dans le traitement des dossiers d’immigration et une proposition d’amnistie. Les Américains de tous les horizons ont créé une pétition pour améliorer la sécurité de nos frontières et garantir un accord équitable à ceux qui sont déjà présents:

LISEZ ET SIGNEZ LA PÉTITION BIPARTISAINE CRÉÉE PAR “NOUS LE PEUPLE”

-Adam Rice

SOURCES UTILISÉES:

https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/us-immigration-since-1965

https://www.nps.gov/cham/learn/historyculture/mexican-american-war.htm

https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/mexican-american-war

https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation

https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/

https://www.lawfareblog.com/drug-and-migrant-smuggling-across-us-mexico-border-interview-natalia-mendoza

https://humantraffickingsearch.org/protecting-unaccompanied-mexican-migrant-child-trafficking-victims/

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/deadly-human-trafficking-business-mexico-border-160117073423022.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/mexican-woman-border-child-traffic

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328253798_Sex_Trafficking_at_the_US_Borders_Victim_Characteristics_Amber_Alert_Grant_funded_by_2017-MC-FX-K003_from_the_Office_of_Juvenile_Justice_and_Delinquency_Prevention_OJJDP_US_Department_of_Justice

https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico704/video/video_index.html

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-migrant-caravan-and-those-that-came-before/

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-us-refugee-system-work

https://www.usccb.org/about/resettlement-services/upload/Refugee-Assistance-2.pdf

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/migration-compact

Sources supplémentaires:

https://www.circa.com/story/2016/11/28/world/a-top-human-rights-activist-said-the-us-is-meddling-with-mexicos-sex-trafficking-laws

https://people.howstuffworks.com/what-is-ms13.htm

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/ms-13

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39645640

https://time.com/4184368/drug-cartel-gangsters-ioan-grillo-book-excerpt/

https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-drug-trafficking

Il Gele Hesjes E Il Gilets Jaunes Tengono Una Grande Marcia Multi-Nazionale A Maastricht [IT]

Oggi nella città olandese di Maastricht contrariamente al racconto delle notizie mainstream, migliaia hanno marciato oggi in manifestazione del Gele Hesjes, o Movimento della Maglia Gialla. Il numero di persone presenti nelle liste di notizie era di sole 800 persone, ma secondo le fonti che erano lì c’erano in realtà 2.135 persone che marciavano nella prima marcia multinazionale fino ad oggi. Gli arresti sono stati minimi, poiché i Gele Hesjes sono un movimento non violento. L’incidente è accaduto quando un manifestante stava usando fuochi d’artificio che hanno colpito un’altra persona. Un membro della Yellow Vest stava tentando di aiutare la persona quando è stato attaccato da un agente di polizia. Ha risposto dicendo “perché mi stai colpendo sei un idiota?” e fu arrestato. La persona coinvolta è stata successivamente rilasciata dopo 4 ore. Nell’articolo di notizie elencato, puoi veramente vedere la disconnessione tra ciò che è accaduto nella realtà e la narrativa spinta dai media. Si presume che i fuochi d’artificio siano stati lanciati intenzionalmente a un individuo, quando la verità era che si trattava semplicemente di un incidente e la persona arrestata per “insultare” stava effettivamente tentando di aiutare l’infortunato.

Gli olandesi Gele Hesjes sono in piedi contro il loro primo ministro Rutte, coinvolto nel corrotto gruppo globalista Bilderberg. Maastricht è stata scelta per questa Marcia nazionale perché è lì che hanno fatto un’unione monetaria (l’euro) attraverso il Trattato di Maastricht nel 1992. Prima di oggi, i Gele Hesjes hanno corso ogni sabato dal 1 ° dicembre nella capitale del Limburgo. Mark Rutte fa parte del Partito politico VVD nei Paesi Bassi e ha un rating di approvazione disastrosamente basso. Molti manifestanti chiedono di lasciare l’Unione europea nel far fronte ai cambiamenti negli ultimi anni che rendono più difficile per i cittadini. Le persone stanno scoprendo che devono andare oltre agli appuntamenti medici in cui gli ospedali hanno chiuso, e vedono la loro soluzione a questo e molte altre cose nella loro società come referendum vincolanti. Richiedono unità in questo momento perché hanno bisogno che tutti facciano in modo che ciò accada, e invitano le persone a rimanere vigili nel riconoscere le tattiche di “divide et impera”, e anche a difendere le false notizie. Vogliono utilizzare questi referendum vincolanti affinché tutti possano votare sulle riforme riguardanti le tasse, l’assistenza sanitaria, le forze di mercato, la distribuzione della loro prosperità, la politica di immigrazione e asilo, la regolamentazione dell’UE e assicurare che i funzionari eletti rappresentino prima le persone. Nella loro pagina di gruppo, vogliono la Democrazia come era intesa e che se le persone non sono d’accordo con le loro scelte di leader, allora torneranno al tavolo da disegno come hanno detto. Analogamente ai Gilets Jaunes in Francia, anche loro stanno sostenendo il ritiro delle persone e utilizzano referendum vincolanti per correggere il loro sistema socio-economico nel suo complesso.

Ci sono state anche proteste tenute in Belgio oggi. Gli organizzatori si sono riuniti presso il reparto mobili IKEA, dove hanno definito il fatto che questa società produce profitti di Million e continua a porre termine all’occupazione. Hanno espresso rabbia con la società che ha distrutto troppe foreste per fabbricare i loro prodotti e che non stanno contribuendo a una giusta quota di tasse come una grande impresa proporzionale al profitto. I manifestanti si sono manifestati anche in un locale stabilimento Coca-Cola dove hanno espresso lamentele simili. In un’altra pagina dei Paesi Bassi si parla di come questo è stato un grande evento per Gele Hesjes poiché era la prima volta che si vedeva un messaggio conciso, e c’erano cittadini francesi, belgi e tedeschi alle spalle oggi a Maastricht. Questa posizione, in particolare, è significativa per tutti gli europei a causa del trattato di cui sopra. Prima del 1992 l’EEG esisteva e funzionava bene, ma come molti concordano che le persone al potere volevano di più e così è nato l’Euro. Ora la maggior parte di questi paesi è in piedi verso l’UE e vuole un maggiore coinvolgimento dei cittadini nel governo attraverso referendum vincolanti. Come la maggior parte dei paesi che hanno preso questa richiesta, vogliono una vera democrazia e non vedono un sistema in cui si votano i politici ogni 4 anni. Molti olandesi che si sentono in questo modo lo fanno con prove a sostegno nel loro rapporto su Remkes, dove a dicembre è stato accennato al fatto che la democrazia olandese non funziona abbastanza bene per il popolo.

Una cosa è abbondantemente chiara, questa idea si sta diffondendo come un incendio in tutto il mondo. Ogni paese sembra avere gli stessi problemi a modo loro. La soluzione è sempre la stessa, vera democrazia e le persone hanno molto più potere sulle leggi che vengono create nei loro paesi. Sono stato ispirato dagli olandesi sin dall’inizio perché erano vigili non violenti e ciò si può vedere nel fatto che l’unico arresto fatto era quello di chiamare un poliziotto un idiota. Oggi segna un enorme successo per Gele Hesjes poiché non solo hanno tenuto la loro prima grande marcia, ma lo hanno fatto con persone provenienti da tutta Europa!

-Adam Rice

2 febbraio 2019

Le fonti utilizzate al di fuori di persone che erano effettivamente lì:

www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/02/02/honderden-gele-hesjes-pr

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2019/02/honderden-bij-anti-eu-protest-van-gele-hesjes-in-maastricht/

Uno dei numerosi gruppi Facebook di Gele Hesjes che contenevano contenuti che descrivevo, in breve, gli obiettivi dei movimenti

MARK RUTTE HA CHIESTO DI PARTECIPAZIONE CON BILDERBERG E PERCHE 'HA GIOCATO IL RUOLO NELL'ATTACCO DELLA LIBIA:

FOTOGRAFIE DEL MARZO:

De Gele Hesjes En De Gilets Jaunes Houden Een Grote Multinationale Mars in Maastricht [DUTCH]

Vandaag de dag in de Nederlandse stad Maastricht, in tegenstelling tot het verhaal in het reguliere nieuws, marcheerden duizenden vandaag in manifestatie van de Gele Hesjes, of gele vestbeweging. Het aantal aanwezigen in het nieuws vermeldt slechts 800 mensen, maar volgens bronnen die er waren, liepen het in de eerste multinationale mars tot nu toe 2.135 mensen. De arrestaties waren minimaal, omdat de Gele Hesjes een geweldloze beweging zijn. Het incident gebeurde toen een demonstrant vuurwerk gebruikte dat een andere persoon trof. Een geel vestlid probeerde de persoon te helpen toen hij werd aangevallen door een politieagent. Hij antwoordde door te zeggen: “Waarom val je me op je idioot?” en werd gearresteerd. De betrokken persoon werd vervolgens na 4 uur vrijgelaten. In het genoemde nieuwsartikel kun je echt zien hoe de verbinding is tussen wat er in de werkelijkheid is gebeurd en het verhaal dat door media wordt gepusht. Er wordt beweerd dat het vuurwerk opzettelijk naar een persoon was gegooid, toen de waarheid was dat het gewoon een ongeluk was en de persoon die werd gearresteerd voor ‘beledigen’ eigenlijk probeerde de gewonde te helpen.

De Nederlandse Gele Hesjes staan ​​tegenover hun premier Rutte die betrokken is bij de corrupte globalistische Bilderberg Groep. Maastricht werd gekozen voor deze Nationale Mars omdat het daar is dat ze een monetaire unie (de euro) hebben gesloten via het Verdrag van Maastricht in 1992. Vóór vandaag zijn de Gele Hesjes elke zaterdag actief sinds 1 december in de Limburgse hoofdstad. Mark Rutte is van de VVD-fractie in Nederland en heeft een rampzalig lage goedkeuringsclassificatie. Veel demonstranten roepen op om de EU te verlaten om de laatste paar jaar op te staan ​​tegen veranderingen die het voor de burgers moeilijker maken. Mensen vinden dat ze verder moeten reizen naar artsenafspraken waar ziekenhuizen zijn gesloten, en zij zien hun oplossing voor dat en vele andere dingen in hun samenleving als bindende referenda. Ze roepen om eenheid in deze tijd omdat ze iedereen nodig hebben om dit te laten gebeuren, en mensen aansporen waakzaam te blijven in het herkennen van ‘verdeel en heers’ tactieken, en pleiten ook voor het verzet tegen nepnieuws. Ze willen deze bindende referenda gebruiken, zodat alle mensen kunnen stemmen over hervormingen op het gebied van belastingen, gezondheidszorg, marktwerking, verdeling van hun welvaart, immigratie- en asielbeleid, regelgeving van de EU en ervoor zorgen dat de verkozen ambtenaren de bevolking eerst moeten vertegenwoordigen. Op hun groepenpagina willen ze Democratie zoals het was bedoeld en dat als de mensen het niet eens zijn met hun leiderskeuzes, ze terug zullen gaan naar de tekentafel zoals ze die stellen. Net als de Gilets Jaunes in Frankrijk pleiten ook zij voor het feit dat mensen partijen apart zetten en bindende referenda gebruiken om hun sociaaleconomische systeem als geheel te corrigeren.

Er waren vandaag ook protesten in België. Organisatoren verzamelden zich op de meubelafdeling van IKEA, waar ze riepen dat dit bedrijf de winst van Million nog steeds beëindigt. Ze spraken hun woede uit over het feit dat het bedrijf te veel bossen verwoestte om hun producten te maken en dat ze geen eerlijk belastingaandeel bijdroegen als een groot bedrijf dat in verhouding staat tot de winst. De demonstranten manifesteerden zich ook bij een lokale Coca-Cola-fabriek waar ze soortgelijke klachten hadden geuit. Op een andere pagina uit Nederland spreekt het over hoe dit een groot evenement voor de Gele Hesjes was, want het was de eerste keer dat een beknopte boodschap werd gezien, en er stonden vandaag Franse, Belgische en Duitse burgers achter in Maastricht. Deze locatie is in het bijzonder van belang voor alle Europeanen vanwege het bovengenoemde verdrag. Vóór 1992 bestond en werkte het EEG prima, maar zo velen zijn het erover eens dat de machthebbers meer wilden en dus werd de Euro geboren. Nu komen de meeste van deze landen op voor de EU en willen ze meer burgerbetrokkenheid bij de overheid via bindende referenda. Zoals de meeste landen die deze oproep hebben opgenomen, willen ze echte democratie en zien ze geen systeem waarbij je politici in elke 4 jaar als dat stemt. Veel Nederlanders die zich zo voelen, doen dit met bewijsmateriaal in hun Remkes-rapport, waar in december werd gesuggereerd dat de Nederlandse democratie niet goed genoeg werkt voor de mensen.

Eén ding is overduidelijk, dit idee verspreidt zich als een lopend vuurtje over de hele wereld. Elk land lijkt op zijn eigen manier dezelfde problemen te ervaren. De oplossing is altijd dezelfde, ware democratie en de mensen hebben veel meer macht over de wetten die in hun land worden gecreëerd. Ik ben vanaf het begin door de Nederlanders geïnspireerd, omdat ze waakzaam geweldloos zijn geweest en dat blijkt uit het feit dat de enige arrestatie die werd gedaan was om een ​​politieagent een idioot te noemen. Vandaag markeert een enorm succes voor de Gele Hesjes omdat ze niet alleen hun eerste grote mars hielden, maar dat deden ze ook met mensen uit heel Europa!

-Adam Rice

2 februari 2019

Bronnen die worden gebruikt buiten mensen die er daadwerkelijk waren:

www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/02/02/honderden-gele-hesjes-pr

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2019/02/honderden-bij-anti-eu-protest-van-gele-hesjes-in-maastricht/

Een van de verschillende Gele Hesjes-Facebookgroepen met inhoud die ik kort beschreef, de bewegingsdoelen

MARK RUTTE WORDT GELEGD OVER BETROKKENHEID MET BILDERBERG EN WAAROM HIJ ROL SPEELDE IN HET AANVALLEN VAN LIBIË:

VOETEN VAN DE MAART:

Les Gele Hesjes Et Les Gilets Jaunes Organisent Une Grande Marche Multinationale à Maastricht [FR]

Aujourd’hui, dans la ville néerlandaise de Maastricht, contrairement à ce qu’écrit l’actualité, des milliers de personnes ont défilé aujourd’hui pour manifester le mouvement Gele Hesjes, ou Yellow Vest. Le nombre de personnes présentes dans les actualités ne compte que 800 personnes, mais selon les sources présentes, il y aurait eu 2 135 personnes qui ont défilé lors de la première marche multinationale à ce jour. Les arrestations ont été minimes, le Gele Hesjes étant un mouvement non violent. L’incident s’est produit lorsqu’un manifestant a utilisé des feux d’artifice qui ont frappé une autre personne. Un membre du gilet jaune tentait de l’aider lorsqu’il a été agressé par un policier. Il a répondu en disant “pourquoi me frappes-tu idiot?” et a été arrêté. La personne impliquée a été relâchée 4 heures plus tard. Dans l’article de presse cité, vous pouvez vraiment voir le décalage entre ce qui s’est passé dans la réalité et le récit poussé par les médias. Il est allégué que les feux d’artifice ont été lancés intentionnellement sur une personne alors qu’en réalité, il s’agissait simplement d’un accident et que la personne arrêtée pour «insulte» essayait en réalité d’aider la personne blessée.

Les Néerlandaises Gele Hesjes se dressent contre leur Premier ministre Rutte, impliqué dans le groupe mondialiste corrompu Bilderberg. Maastricht a été choisie pour cette Marche nationale, car c’est là que l’union monétaire (l’euro) a été conclue en 1992 grâce au traité de Maastricht. Avant aujourd’hui, les Gele Hesjes couraient tous les samedis depuis le 1er décembre dans la capitale limbourgeoise. Mark Rutte est du parti politique VVD aux Pays-Bas et a un taux d’approbation extrêmement bas. De nombreux manifestants appellent à quitter l’Union européenne face aux changements survenus au cours des dernières années qui rendent les choses plus difficiles pour les citoyens. Les gens se rendent compte qu’ils doivent se rendre plus loin aux rendez-vous des médecins où les hôpitaux sont fermés et ils voient dans leur solution la solution à cela et à bien d’autres choses dans leur société comme des référendums contraignants. Ils appellent à l’unité en ce moment parce qu’ils ont besoin de tout le monde pour que cela se produise, et exhortent les gens à rester vigilants en reconnaissant la tactique du “diviser pour conquérir”, et à plaider eux aussi pour prendre position contre les fausses informations. Ils veulent utiliser ces référendums contraignants afin que tout le monde puisse voter sur les réformes concernant les taxes, les soins de santé, les forces du marché, la répartition de leur prospérité, la politique d’immigration et d’asile, la réglementation de l’UE et garantir que les élus doivent représenter les citoyens en premier lieu. Sur la page de leurs groupes, ils souhaitent que la démocratie soit conforme aux intentions et que, si les citoyens ne sont pas d’accord avec les choix de leurs dirigeants, ils retourneront à la table à dessin comme ils le disent. Semblables aux Gilets Jaunes en France, ils plaident également en faveur de la mise en marge des partis et utilisent des référendums contraignants pour corriger leur système socio-économique dans son ensemble.

Des manifestations ont également eu lieu en Belgique aujourd’hui. Les organisateurs se sont réunis au département de l’ameublement IKEA, où ils ont rappelé que cette entreprise réalisait des bénéfices de millions de dollars tout en continuant à mettre fin à ses emplois. Ils ont exprimé leur colère face à la société, qui détruisait trop de forêts pour fabriquer leurs produits, et craignait qu’elles ne versent pas une part équitable des impôts en tant que grande entreprise proportionnelle au profit. Les manifestants ont également manifesté devant une usine locale de Coca-Cola, où ils ont exprimé des plaintes similaires. Dans une autre page des Pays-Bas, il est expliqué que c’était un grand événement pour le Gele Hesjes, car c’était la première fois qu’un message était concis et que des citoyens français, belges et allemands se tenaient derrière ce message aujourd’hui à Maastricht. Cette situation est particulièrement importante pour tous les Européens en raison du traité susmentionné. Avant 1992, l’EEG existait et fonctionnait bien, mais comme beaucoup le reconnaissent, le pouvoir en voulait plus et l’euro est né. À présent, la plupart de ces pays défendent l’UE et souhaitent une plus grande participation des citoyens au gouvernement par le biais de référendums contraignants. Comme la plupart des pays qui ont souscrit à cet appel, ils veulent une vraie démocratie et ne voient pas dans un système de vote des politiciens tous les quatre ans. De nombreux Néerlandais qui le pensent ainsi le font avec des preuves à l’appui dans leur rapport Remkes, où il était indiqué en décembre que la démocratie néerlandaise ne fonctionnait pas assez bien pour le peuple.

Une chose est tout à fait claire, cette idée se répand comme une traînée de poudre à travers le monde. Chaque pays semble connaître les mêmes problèmes à sa manière. La solution est toujours la même, une vraie démocratie et les peuples ont beaucoup plus de pouvoir sur les lois créées dans leurs pays. Les Néerlandais m’ont inspiré dès le début, car ils ont été non-violents avec vigilance et cela se voit dans le fait que la seule arrestation qui a été faite est d’avoir appelé un policier un imbécile. Aujourd’hui, Gele Hesjes remporte un énorme succès, car non seulement ils ont tenu leur première grande marche, mais ils l’ont fait avec des personnalités de toute l’Europe!

-Adam Rice

2 février 2019

Sources utilisées en dehors des personnes qui étaient réellement là:

www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/02/02/honderden-gele-hesjes-pr

https://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2019/02/honderden-bij-anti-eu-protest-van-gele-hesjes-in-maastricht/

Un des nombreux groupes Facebook de Gele Hesjes contenant du contenu que j’ai utilisé pour décrire brièvement les objectifs de mouvements

MARK RUTTE SE POSE SUR L'IMPLICATION AVEC BILDERBERG ET POURQUOI IL A JOUÉ UN ROLE DANS L'ATTAQUE DE LA LIBYE

FOOTAGE DE LA MARCHE:

La France Envisage Un Nouvel Acte Qui Empêcherait Les Manifestations [FR]

À partir de janvier 2019, il est de plus en plus probable que des lois interdisant de manifester en France à grande échelle soient adoptées. Le projet de loi contient 8 articles et 263 amendements qui donneraient à la police le pouvoir d’arrêter les manifestations et de fouiller toutes les personnes et les véhicules impliqués. Les Français ont tenu de longues séances de débat sur ces nouvelles lois, et malgré cela, certaines dispositions ont déjà été mises en œuvre. Le 5 février, un vote approfondi aura lieu sur les propositions et beaucoup se sont plaints publiquement du fait que cela nuirait davantage aux droits des citoyens. Aurélien Taché, membre de la majorité, aurait déclaré: “Nous ne pouvons restreindre les libertés que dans des cas très spécifiques, sous le contrôle du juge. Le droit commun ne peut pas établir un système de restriction par principe et de liberté par exception. le germe est dans cette loi. “

Il y a trois mesures en particulier qui ont conduit les gens à avoir de si graves problèmes avec l’adoption de ces lois. Le premier est la possibilité de fouiller tous les véhicules à proximité d’une manifestation pour confisquer “les armes par destination”. La seconde est que le préfet peut totalement interdire les manifestations. Le dernier étant que couvrir votre visage entraînerait une amende de 15 000 euros et un an de prison. La loi a été proposée par le républicain au Sénat Bruno Retailleau, qui est également ministre de l’Intérieur. Christophe Castaner aurait déclaré: “Nous avons choisi de défendre les millions de Français qui ne peuvent faire plus que quelques milliers de brutes” lors des débats introductifs à l’Assemblée nationale. Ces mots donnent le ton sur la façon dont le gouvernement a adopté une approche extrême face aux manifestants du gilet jaune au cours des derniers mois. Malgré tous les débats, le texte n’a toujours pas été beaucoup modifié.

Les articles 1 et 2 ont été le plus débattus dans la mesure où ce sont les parties qui ont le plus à faire. L’article 1 de la première version autorisait des précautions similaires à celles du match de football Euro 2016, dans lequel le préfet pouvait autoriser la police à fouiller toute personne se trouvant dans une zone ciblée. Finalement, la police a écouté le gouvernement et la mention de ces mesures a disparu à cause du procureur. Il a rapidement été étendu à tous les véhicules et à tous les bagages, afin que la police puisse confisquer tout ce qui pouvait être utilisé comme une arme. Ces lois entreraient en vigueur 24 heures avant un événement et le secrétaire général de l’Union du pouvoir judiciaire, Vincent Chamoillaux, aurait déclaré: “C’est très vague, nous pouvons considérer une arme comme quelque chose d’assez inhabituel. Nous risquons de tomber dans une vaste pratique justifiant de nombreuses arrestations simplement parce que vous avez un mât de drapeau pour porter votre drapeau “.
Nicolaus Krameyer sur Amnesty International a ajouté: “Les personnes ne feront pas nécessairement l’objet de poursuites, mais elles ont été privées de liberté jusqu’à 48 heures et cela sera enregistré dans leur casier judiciaire au moment où elles protestaient. Ce serait un moyen supplémentaire de justifier des actes de violence massive. les arrestations, telles que celles pratiquées les 1er et 8 décembre, où ils avaient également utilisé un groupe d’infractions présumées pour commettre des actes de violence. ” Ugo Bernalicis, une autre personne interviewée, dit qu’il doute que cela change tout ce qui se passe actuellement. “C’est ridicule. Aujourd’hui, quand vous allez protester, vous êtes déjà fouillé et vous ne pouvez pas protester si vous refusez. Ceci est l’affichage.” L’article 2 autoriserait également les personnes à se voir interdire de manifester pendant un mois si elles blessent une personne ou détruisent des biens. Le non-respect de cette consigne entraînerait une peine de prison de 6 mois et une amende de 7 500 euros.

Vincent Chamoillaux a déclaré: “Nous renversons la logique de la présomption d’innocence, sans procédure contradictoire, le préfet pourra vous interdire de manifester et c’est à vous de contester. Les critères sont extrêmement vagues et leur permettent de visez large. ” Une douzaine de membres de la majorité ont déposé un amendement visant à supprimer cet article. Aurelien Taché, le rédacteur en chef, aurait déclaré: “Les préfets aujourd’hui ne feraient rien. Mais demain, une autre puissance pourrait avoir une appréciation extrêmement large de l’interdiction des manifestations. très préoccupé par cela. ” Il a également ajouté que les garanties proposées par le député et les parlementaires du LREM avaient été refusées et que la seule chose qui avait été supprimée était la possibilité de perquisitionner les biens des proches de ces manifestants.

L’article 3 impose aux personnes qui ont été interdites de manifester de s’inscrire au fichier des personnes recherchées, comme le registre des délinquants sexuels, mais pour les infractions pénales de base. L’article 4 a été adopté le 30 janvier pour empêcher la dissimulation de son visage et punir d’une amende et d’une peine d’emprisonnement. Ugo Bernalicis a également commenté ceci: “L’amende est déjà très peu prononcée et, quand il y en a, beaucoup sont levées car il existe une jurisprudence qui dit que porter une cagoule ne vous cache pas le visage”. Fondamentalement, les mesures restent les mêmes selon plusieurs sources interrogées. Sa mise en vigueur reste discutable, car il s’agit d’un projet de loi qui ne peut être accéléré. Il faudra peut-être plusieurs mois au Parlement pour passer au crible.

Dunja Mijatovic, du Conseil européen pour les droits de l’homme, a déclaré ce qui suit lorsqu’elle a été interrogée sur la possibilité que cette affaire soit portée devant son tribunal: “De telles mesures, dont la proportionnalité me semble douteuse, ne me paraissent pas nécessaires de garantir efficacement la liberté de réunion et peut au contraire être perçu comme un obstacle à l’exercice de cette liberté Dans un contexte aussi délicat, j’invite le gouvernement et le législateur à ne pas aller dans cette direction et à privilégier les moyens dialogue et de garantir le respect des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales “. Il semblerait que beaucoup de gens sachent comment ces lois peuvent entraîner un usage abusif et la réduction des libertés prévues dans leur constitution. Seul le temps nous dira comment tout cela se déroulera.

Pour moi, je suis tout à fait d’accord avec le sentiment de mettre fin à la violence et à la destruction de tous les côtés du mouvement Yellow Vest. Je peux aussi voir de nombreuses façons que ces lois pourraient être utilisées contre les Français. À quel point serait-il difficile de payer les gens pour qu’ils agissent lors d’un événement et utilisent les actions de quelques-uns pour systématiquement emprisonner toute personne disposée à prendre la parole contre le gouvernement? La façon dont ces lois peuvent être utilisées contre le peuple m’amène à penser que peut-être elles semblent provenir d’un endroit qui souhaite mettre fin à la violence, mais qui ne souhaite en fait que calmer les frustrations de leur peuple en le faisant taire. Une grande partie de ces mouvements concerne des politiciens corrompus et crée un décalage entre la classe dirigeante et le peuple. Il me semble tout à fait logique que si le gouvernement français souhaitait mettre fin à ces manifestations, il écoutait davantage la population, pas moins.

-Adam Rice

2 février 2019

Article français original situé ici!

Plus sur la loi pour cacher ceux qui se font face sont illégaux. [Français]

La France Arrête Des Manifestants Sans Commettre De Crime [FR]

En France, le mouvement Gilet Jaune a eu pour autres conséquences des arrestations préventives. Récemment, deux hommes ont été arrêtés avant même d’avoir assisté à une manifestation. Le 29 janvier, Arthur Breton et son ami Theo ont dû comparaître devant le tribunal pénal de Nanterre sous le prétexte de “groupement pour la préparation de violences ou de dommages” et de “transports sans arme, catégorie D”. Le conducteur a refusé de soumettre ses empreintes digitales et a été accusé d’un troisième chef d’accusation.
Ces personnes n’étaient que 2 des centaines de citoyens arrêtés le 8 décembre lors de la quatrième journée de manifestations dans le cadre de ce mouvement. Beaucoup de personnes arrêtées étaient pour les rassemblements que beaucoup d’entre nous ont finalement vus, mais contrairement à eux, ces personnes ne se sont même jamais rendues à un rassemblement. À 9 heures, les deux hommes sont arrêtés à un contrôle routier à Villeneuve-la-Garenne (Hauts-de-Seine). Au début, la police a demandé à voir les papiers du véhicule, mais quand elle a vu de la peinture chromée et une barre de pneu dans le véhicule, elle a procédé à une perquisition illégale et à des arrestations. L’article en question était un élément de sécurité pour verrouiller votre direction lorsqu’une voiture est garée pour éviter le vol, bien que la police refuse de l’appeler autrement qu’une barre de fer. À l’intérieur de la voiture, on n’a pas trouvé de gilets jaunes, de masques respirants ou d’autres objets indiquant que ces hommes se dirigeaient vers une manifestation, et aucun d’entre eux n’avait des antécédents criminels. Les deux hommes jurent de ne pas être venus en ville pour se mobiliser avec les Gilets Jaunes. Ils avaient simplement passé la nuit en ville et emprunté la voiture de leur mère.

C’est ce qu’on appelle l’hystérisation collective, en ce sens que des personnes sont placées imprudemment sous contrôle judiciaire avant d’avoir commis un crime. Le procureur impliqué estime que les preuves sont suffisantes pour justifier des accusations pénales, laissant toutes les autres parties impliquées presque sans voix. Le 8 décembre, 1 082 personnes ont été arrêtées, ce qui représente le nombre d’arrestations le plus élevé en une journée depuis le début du mouvement, le 17 novembre. Les personnes arrêtées rappellent les paroles du ministre de la Justice qui exhortait tous les procureurs à “mettre en place des contrôles préventifs massifs” en réponse à la le climat à l’époque. Le problème soulevé par ces avocats de la défense, à savoir que ces lois n’auraient pu résoudre aucun problème grave si les personnes arrêtées n’avaient clairement pas l’intention de manifester. Comme ils l’ont noté, le seul crime commis ici n’était même pas d’avoir un gilet jaune dans la voiture. Les individus ont finalement été acquittés de leurs accusations, mais cet événement marque un changement notable dans le système juridique français. Si vous ne faites pas attention, ils vous arrêteront pour ce qu’ils pensent que vous faites, et non pour ce qui est factuellement correct.

-Adam Rice

2 février 2019

Article original de Le Monde [FR]

An in depth look at the history of American immigration policy, and issues present still at both international borders

A QUICK WALKTHROUGH OF IMMIGRATION POLICY AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED THROUGHOUT AMERICA'S HISTORY

Many of the trend we see today in America’s immigration system can be traced back to the Hart-Celler, or Immigration and Naturalization Act in the early 1960’s. Previously, after the Pilgrims colonized America in the beginning of the 19th century. In 1882 the Chinese exclusion Act was passed marking the first piece of legislation in history to restrict immigration to the U.S. Before this law passed, there was no Ellis Island checkpoint, and each state dealt with immigration on its own. This system being used has been referred to by the history Channel as a “quota based system” as it was used to primarily favor legal immigration only for Europeans.
During colonial times, people came to America as early as the 1600’s. In 1619 the first 20 slaves were brought to Virginia by ship, and had reached 700,000 by 1790. In 1808 Congress mandated that importing slaves was illegal, but the act persisted for quite a while longer. The Civil War brought freedom to Millions of indentured slaves in 1865. At the same time in history we experienced millions of Europeans coming to America seeking a better life. In the 1840’s half of the immigrants were of Irish heritage fleeing the famine in their country. According to the History Channel and other sources, most of these people settled close to the ports they arrived in. It is estimated 4.5 million Irish citizens came to America between 1840 and 1930. In the same time period 5 million German’s came here to begin farming in Midwest areas like Milwaukee, WI and an estimated 25,000 Chinese immigrants went towards California for the gold rush.
It was this same time in history that we first started to see a public outcry against the influx of people to our country. At the time, the large majority of Americans were Protestant’s of European descent. The Irish were practicing Catholics, and at the time the group of people viewed as a threat to American job security was primarily Catholic Europeans. In the 1850’s there was a political party called the “Know Nothing’s” who were openly Anti-Catholic American and anti-immigration. In 1865 this party attempted to run ex-president Millard Fillmore as a candidate but he finished third. Fillmore had previously inherited the title of POTUS as Vice President for Zachary Taylor when he died in office. His time in office alienated him from his party because he refused to end slavery in the states where it was legal, and used federal resources to return slaves to their owners.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was brought forth in 1882 to bar Chinese people from immigrating here. At the time, America had entered into a depression circa 1870 and the Chinese-Americans willingness to work for less was a problem for California. Each state handled their own immigration and it was felt at the time the best solution to mitigate the flow of people to America it must be handled nationally, and Ellis Island was created. In 1890 President Harrison designated this as an official checkpoint, and 12 million people passed through it between 1892 and 1954. In total between 1880 and 1920 over 20 million people migrated to the U.S. from all over Europe, with 1907 being the peak year at 1.3 million legal immigrants entering the country. After World War 1 legislature was passed between 1917 and 1920 that created the citizenship test and quota requirements. These laws basically said that based on yearly census data, only a number of immigrants not exceeding 2% of their nationality’s population could enter the country legally each year.
It was around 1930 that the Great Depression and WW2 that immigration slowed to the point that only 6.9% of our population was foreign born. At that point Congress passed legislation to give special visas to people fleeing the Soviet Union and elsewhere in Europe. Likewise with the communist revolution in Cuba we saw another large influx of people to the U.S. It was in 1965 that the Immigration and Naturalization Act was passed, and there were no longer any quotas regarding immigration law. It was at this point America began to see many more immigrants from other countries as the law was no longer weighted to favor those from western European Protestant areas.
The main driving force behind these changes to immigration laws was the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. The laws up to that point had been racially motivated, and with the cause endorsed by JFK there was a big push to allow equal treatment of persons seeking a life in America regardless of birthplace. In 1965 after Kennedy had already been shot the law was passed, but was seen as a change that would not upset the balance of things. It was viewed that immigration would continue as it had, and simply our Nation would be taking a more moral approach to it. It was at this time we shifted from quotas prioritizing Europeans to legislature that would favor those with relatives who were citizens, those with special skills, or people seeking asylum. Though there were still per-country caps, and regulations on numbers, this change allowed entire families to leave their original country to establish a new life in America. Between Europeans fleeing Communism and Asians once barred from entry, there were over 18 Million legal immigration cases in the 30 years following this laws creation. In the previous 30 years there were less than 30% that number of cases. Between the 1950’s and 1990’s there were far fewer European immigrants, but the number coming from South America, Mexico, and Asia were steadily rising.
In 1986 the Immigration and Reform act was passed as the number of people entering the country illegally through Mexico and Canada was becoming problematic for Americans. The original goal being to provide more enforcement of immigration policy as well as ensure that it is easy enough to immigrate through legal channels. This act created 2 new amnesty programs for those already on American soil, and was utilized by over 3 million people at the time. In 1990 the Immigration act expanded the legislature written in 1965 and increased maximum number to 700,000 people a year and called for bringing more people from countries that did not have large presence in America to encourage diversity. Similar to in the 1800’s another recession occurred in the late 1990’s and many Americans grew discontent with losing jobs to non citizens as well as the way social welfare programs seemed to be not generally favored in their use at the time. It was then in 1996 that the Illegal Immigration Reform Act and the Immigrant Responsibility Acts were passed.
After 9-11 the Department of Homeland Security was formed and took the helm regarding enforcing the immigration laws in accordance with what has been described above. Some modifications were made, but primarily to this day non-citizens will either enter the country on a temporary visa or with permanent status. Those receiving a green card can ultimately become a citizen, and others may enter lawfully on a temporary visa.

THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR BOTH DEFINES OUR SOUTHERN BORDER AND RESULTS IN AMERICAS ACQUISITION OF SEVERAL NEW STATES

The history of our southern neighbors is a long one and Americas hands are absolutely not clean either in the matter. Between 1846 and 1849 President Polk wanted to practice Manifest Destiny and colonize south of the Texas border. Texas at the time was its own country as it fought Mexico for its freedom declared by the Treaty of Velasco. At the time, the Mexican Congress never ratified the document and in 1845 both America and Mexico felt the throes of war with both nations attempting to expand their territories. At the time, we ended up seizing several states from mexico as part of our peace terms. For a long time many Mexicans lived in these states as they always had, but obtaining citizenship wasn’t easy. In 1955 President Eisenhower launched Operation Wetback, the largest mass deportation in U.S. History. 1.3 Million Mexicans were deported from primarily the same states that had been seized from Mexico nearly a century ago. In that same time joint programs had been overseeing their visas in the country, but at the time Mexico began to experience a labor shortage and they wanted their citizens to return home. The Mexican government at the time sponsored a military style program with our border patrol to deport all of these people back to Mexico. In doing this, wide scale anti-immigrant and anti-Mexico propaganda was used to steer citizens against these people, who had actually at one time held legal permission to reside here.
During the 1940’s and 1950’s many Americans were told the citizens residing in south western states had been here illegally. In this era, that was actually not the truth and was a narrative used to generate fear to support the Mexican government in the return of their nationals. In 1942 the U.S. launched Operation Bracero, or the Joint Farm Labor Program. At the time many Mexican immigrants were discriminated against in Texas due to continued hostilities, and this program was designed to bring massive numbers of people in on temporary work visas for guaranteed compensation. Mexico didn’t want its citizens working in Texas, so from 1942-1947 the state was not allowed to participate. Many of the employers did not want to pay the guaranteed wages, so Mexicans began sneaking across the border and working in Texas as illegal citizens while the Bracero program expanded elsewhere in the U.S. States like California back then grew dependent on the labor of these some 4.6 Million people that arrived here between 1942 and 1964. Texas for quite some time by permitting undocumented workers to work on their farms irritated those elsewhere in the U.S. In 1953 President Eisenhower attempted to use the National Guard to deport people on a wide scale in hopes of returning many of these jobs to Americans and assist with Mexico’s labor shortage. American law forbade this, and it took the use of border patrol a year later.
Part of the tactics at the time were documented where these same agents would threaten business owners to participate in the Bracero Program. When Operation Wetback happened it was based largely on fear, and many people here lawfully were deported. The Bracero Program continue until it ran out of funding in 1964, but by now both the Mexican farmers, as well as the American farms to a degree had become reliant on this program. Farmers petitioned Congress to keep the program going but were unsuccessful. The lasting implications of these programs were continued immigration. As the Border Patrol agents deported people to Mexico, it created a vacuum for labor that would only be ultimately be filled by more undocumented workers as it has historically always been cost effective to do so and bypass labor laws in certain industries. Essentially what happened, by creating this program that built our agricultural sector on the backs of migrant workers, and also excluded Texas, they gave the farmers at the time an easy way to become dependent on the savings that came from hiring illegals. As time progressed, and our economy felt more strains we saw more pushes for deportation. The problem with the Mexican border is complex as the history as far back as can be seen has always seen a businesses utilizing undocumented workers in parallel to those entering legally. Likewise, with these work programs only existing with temporary citizenship status the end result too would be people overstaying the visa and being penalized because the initial laws were not set up as logically as they could have been. Over the years as it became the norm to sneak across the border for work, it too became normal to use the southern border for drug smuggling.

THE INCREASE IN CRIME AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER AND THE WAYS THE CIA PARTICIPATED IN IT

In an article on The Institute for Policy studies it talks about the history of the CIA and its “contra gangs” where our government actually facilitated the sale of drugs in America with the use of the CIA. In the 1980’s we were funding a secretive war against the Nicaraguan government by selling Colombian cocaine in Los Angeles. In 1996 journalist Gary Webb took a year to trace back the entire network, and found the lasting implications of what the CIA did with Rick Ross at the time was forever connect the Cartels to the California street gangs. As time progressed, the rest of our country was untapped territory. This same journalist even found that most of the automatic weapons being used by the gangs stemmed from these same CIA dealers.
In a different article from Lawfare, a sociologist named Natalia Mendoza talks about the history of drug and migrant smuggling at the Mexican border. As she puts it, these trades have allowed cartels to seize total power over large areas as well as employ ‘permanent militias’ in the same places. Along the border, smuggling had been so normalized by 2005 that most people in certain areas took place. With hard economic times, and farming no longer making ends meet, many began to participate in these activities in various ways. Until 2009 it was not as violent she explains as it is today for these people. Many there would assist in the drug trade to keep their independence and homes without needing to consider a move to the U.S. Until 2009 these Mexican citizens were allowed to work as independent contractors in the drug trade, but the war on drugs was eventually militarized. All of the people in these towns were put on the payroll and became permanent employees, and the smuggling towns militarized in response.
Until 2009 also, the smuggling of drugs as well as people were separate trades, and respectively nobody claimed ownership of the tunnels. It was generally acceptable for anyone to use them as long as nothing was damaged in the process. In 2010 so many people were crossing the border illegally, it attracted the attention of the process so the drug cartels took it upon themselves to regulate the process on their end. The cartels created a fee based system to slow the migration on their end as well as profit from it and this resulted in regular patrols of cartel militia on the Mexican side of the border. The way the cartels operate is buy charging fees to anyone wishing to traffic too in these towns, and use money to pay off the police and government officials. In response to our cracking down on the cartels, it has resulted in them centralizing their operations and becoming a force that cannot be easily displaced from their current spot at the top of the food chain.
The culmination of many things over the course of several decades not only established the demand in America but also fueled a growing criminal network south of the border. We at first seized land from Mexico as spoils of war, and enacted a poorly written program to use labor to justify giving many temporary visas. Over time many were intentionally brought here as part of these same programs with mandatory wage requirements that were high enough that it really only encouraged these same businesses to hire people outside the law. When our government responded to the symptoms and not the underlying issues, the mass deportations never stopped illegal entry. At the same time, our partnering with certain cartels to traffic drugs to fund coups to the south actually helped many of these sicarios establish a network that still exists to this day. By the time the problem got out of hand, our response only resulted in the centralization’s of these groups, and their becoming far more dangerous.
bus leo.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THEY OCCUR REGULARLY AT BOTH INTERNATIONAL BORDERS, AND ARE A TERRIBLE CRISIS

Likewise at our southern border there are many problems with child trafficking. When unaccompanied minors from other countries arrive here they are transferred to a program which will attempt to settle them with family members. If the child came from Mexico or Canada, they are subjected to a simple screening per The Trafficking Victims Protection Act and often either sent back to their origin country or asked to return in 48 hours. It was found in a recent examination that the officers performing these screenings are often under-qualified, and the process itself truly is not thorough enough to determine when children crossing border alone are actually trafficking victims. In an article by the Guardian, a woman named Maria talks about how she ended up in the cartels at 16, and how there is an entire network of children being sold by these same groups. In the town of Juarez, it has been gripped in violence since the 1990’s with two cartels battling over territory. Thousands of women and children have both gone missing as well as turned up dead. She talks about how she was promised a real job, but was drugged and sold for sex and had seen people burned alive and beaten for resisting. She recounts times when wealthy Americans would contact the cartels with a need for children, and they would kidnap Mexican children and ultimately sell them at a later date. It is estimated that as many as 20,000 women and children are brought across the border as a result of human trafficking alone.
Currently the cartels have grown so much south of the border that they now need to differentiate the types of trafficking that occurs. First there are coyote services that charge several thousand dollars to simply get people to the other side where they hope to start a new life, this does not at all mean thats where they end up. The people who do not safely end up on the other side can end up either being sold as property to a U.S. buyer, and this can happen with adults and children. Lastly, there is the sex trade wherein prostitution rings in the U.S. linked to the cartel smuggle people across the border to work in the illegal sex industry in America. The trafficking of sex workers across our international borders is the third largest source of income for cartels after importation of drugs. It is very difficult to pinpoint exact statistics of secretive criminal enterprises however in 2004 it was estimated up to 17,500 people were trafficked into the U.S. as prostitutes. Likewise the U.S. was found in a 2003 study to be the number 2 end destination for international sex trafficking rings. These figures do not include American citizens victimized by the same rings, and in 2006 a study found 25,647 women from 8 countries were smuggled over the borders into the sex trade by the National Institute for Justice.

There are many ways that the victims end up in America, but what is often the case is one persons legal documents are used repeatedly for multiple crossings of other people and not caught by officials. Other tactics utilized include fake documents, fiance visas, and outright illegal crossings altogether. The ways victims are smuggled into the country are ever changing and creates a mounting issue for border authorities to remedy. In recent years something not talked about much in the news is the way the Canadian border actually can be used just as much to meet these same ends for criminal rings. Much of the northern borders run through uninhabited areas that don’t receive direct patrols by authorities and a large portion of the inhabited areas are on tribal lands where the U.S. border patrol has no authority to monitor for human trafficking. There have been several studies as to risk factors leading to trafficking at the Canadian borders, and often people will first travel to Canada for reasons like work or school though many victims were found to have originally been erotic dancers. They would then be transported by car, boat, etc over the border to meet their clients. Canada his been found to be the main point that East Asian and Russian rings traffic victims through. In Canada victims of sex trafficking have typically been viewed as prostitutes and are usually deported and barred from obtaining citizenship. More recently Canada has offered persons classified as victims the opportunity to have a 6 month to 3 year long visa to obtain treatment and work, however a criminal record prevents this which usually is unavoidable once you have been trafficked long enough.
Some victims of trafficking in Canada are offered asylum, and the services that are ultimately given to these individuals can be much different depending on where you are. Canada does not have the most comprehensive data on trafficking statistics like there is on Mexico. Many studies on specifically sex trafficking have indicated the likelihood that Mexico is the primary source of victims to these rings. In 2005 our Department estimated 70% of sex trafficking victims originated in Mexico, and 50% of said victims were also minors who were also used for sex. Many studies tracing the pattern of where victims originate found that often time victims are taken from poor regions to the south, and as much as 30% of victims trafficked out of Mexico likely originated in Central America. One of the biggest risk factors that have been found to contribute to becoming a sex trafficking victim is actually forced migration. When cartel violence and government instability cause people to flee their country they often find themselves isolated and are preyed upon during transit. Where these people are often undocumented, there are many stops on the way that them or their children can rapidly become trapped in a nightmare like a cartel sex ring.

Though the U.S. still absolutely deports many sex trafficking victims based on the arrest records they obtained during their captivity there are still two options available to victims. The T-visa exists to temporarily provide health services and employment eligibility to victims and roughly 1000 of the allowed 5000 visas get used yearly. This visa requires cooperation with prosecution and opportunity for permanent residency, where the U-visa does not offer anything permanent or access to work and health benefits. In a PBS expose on the smuggling at the border they describe how each day over 100,000 people cross through the San Ysidro port and traffic like this greatly impedes officers ability to thoroughly examine credentials of people entering the country. Due to the backlog of cases regarding these types of crimes, often very little is done to the smugglers.

The easiest way to get across the border is through bribery of the border officials, and an FBI agent who was interviewed talked about the rise of corrupt border agents at ports. At the Otay Mesa Port, an agent nicknamed El Guero had been found to be part of a smuggling ring due to an informant’s tip. An ex-marine and decorated agent with 16 years experience had been lured into a sexual relationship with a female smuggler and was eventually busted with her as a result of the investigation. In the last five years over 100 similar busts to this have occurred, and there are 200 open cases currently regarding corruption at our southern border. The backlog is not restricted to simply corruption or trafficking cases, as of January, 2017 there were 225,846 cases still open and unresolved in immigration court, and the pending cases would put the number over 1,000,000! The addition of more judges increased case closure by 3.9% or 215,569 people. In 2017 there had been a 5 year backlog of cases in immigration court alone due to a burdened system and lack of resources. At the current rate of case closure it would take nearly 4 years to close all active cases in the immigration courts with so few judges available in comparison to the demand…

DEFINING [REFUGEE, MIGRANT, AND ASYLUM SEEKER], THE POLICIES SURROUNDING THEM, ALSO THE HISTORY OF CARAVANS AND PART OF WHY THEY HAVE GROWN IN SIZE

An article from Voice of San Diego last October talks about migrant caravans quite a bit from an informational perspective. As discussed earlier, many factors can result in people fleeing their country to seek a better life in America and travelling in numbers is the safest way to avoid the same traffickers listed above. These caravans have happened for years without much discussion, and they raise the point how the attention they receive in recent times is directly correlated to how the largest caravan to date got so large. The caravans originally formed when mothers from Central America banded together to retrace the trip their children had been abducted on to increase awareness. They are also called Viacrucis Migrante, or Migrant Stations of the cross. They would often time their excursion with Easter to make a comparison between their suffering and that of Jesus. The caravan in April was organized by an advocacy group called Pueblos Sin Fronteras and due to worsening conditions in their countries, as well as increased militarization on both sides of border the need for larger groups to stay safe in transit is an increasing issue for many reasons.
One point made is that the media attention to both the caravans themselves and Trump’s stance on them is another contributing factor to larger caravans. Before Trump was president, the caravans were never really an issue that made it to the public eye, and many do feel that his tweets alone have resulted in a spotlight being shown on the situation with the people in these caravans. Previously it was a rarity that a caravan made it into American media, and recently it has gotten to a point where people can see live feeds of them walking, and social media is utilized to bring more people into the existing caravans. They talk about the caravan that left Honduras and how it grew from a few hundred people to thousands as a result of the media attention and social media.
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras historically are continual sources of persons migrating to the U.S. in groups seeking a better life than that in their country of origin. Between violence, starvation, economic hardship, or just having family in the states the reasons people leave are in no short supply. Much of the instability in these same regions can also be traced back to the Cold War where our involvement in several countries left regions destabilized that left negative effects that persist still to this day. These countries too are not the only locales that spawn large caravans of migrants, between the poverty that is very common, violence, and American foreign policy no place south of Texas is free of the extensive issues that drive people north realistically. In Honduras alone a 2009 coup in their country that resulted in wide-spanned violence towards women that had rarely been seen before. The families resolved to get their children to safety by 2014 and it was then that this same exodus resulted in children being held on military bases at the southern border. As problems worsened in these same countries, so did migration, and eventually quite some time later attention was finally paid to the children being detained at the border. Statistically it is noted that even though the caravans are getting larger, the number of people deemed to be crossing legally or illegally is about the same. It is noted that the utilization of caravans is more of a tactical shift to ensure their own safety while in transit.
America has always taken in those seeking asylum from countries experiencing war or natural disaster, and it was in the 1980’s a standardizes approach to refugees was implemented. Beginning with President Obama, as the situation in the Middle East continued to escalate the American immigration system began to approach refugees with increased apprehension. There is actually a difference between a ‘migrant’, a ‘refugee’, and an ‘asylum seeker’. Where migrant is used more as a generalized term, refugee is defined by both American Law and the 1951 Refugee Convention as a migrant that has been, or fears persecution based on [race, religion, nationality, politics, or social group]. Refugees will seek entry from a different country whereas asylum seekers will apply for asylum after with different protocols. The first legislation passed to accept refugees took in 650,000 people after WW2, and continued thereafter but in 1980 an official federal effort was launched to address resettlement of refugees.
The Refugee Act of 1980 officially created the U.S. Refugee Admission Program after South Vietnam was taken hold of by a communist dictator. There was a call to create a system that could facilitate a continued need to take in refugees from the continual conflicts that pop up around the globe. President Carter with this legislation began the procedures that would vett, admit, and help settle the refugees it also defined officially. This act also increased the number of people allowed to be accepted to 50,000 and permitted POTUS to allow larger numbers in by executive order. The number of people using the program has dropped significantly over the years, but in fact seems to fluctuate as primarily large numbers of refugees will only manifest as a result of extreme conflicts in the origin country. In 2016 President Obama approved an additional 5000 refugees be admitted over the already accepted 80,000 accepted from Syria and suggested the number be increased to 110,000. President Trump reversed this to be only 50,000 people and by this point in time it is set to arrive at its lowest cap of only 30,000 refugees per year.
The first step in the process is to register with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. This office will do an initial screening, gather documents, and refer the individual to a Resettlement Support Center. The applicant will then be interviewed at one of 9 locations around the world and be thoroughly checked against U.S. Intelligence databases. Within 18 to 24 months if there are no issues the person will be cleared to enter the U.S. The DHS, DHHS, and the PRM are the agencies that assist the refugees once in the country. The State Department oversees the Reception and Placement program which funds their rent, and basic expenses. After 90 days the DHHS assumes authority providing long term resources, financial support, and more. The federal government holds authority over where refugees may settle after admitted, and there are 190 approved locations in America. In current times with respect to refugees a proposed piece of legislation being discussed often is the U.N. Migration Compact. On their website they describe it as the first ever global piece of legislation to regulate migration on a global scale in an organized fashion. The website states that the same policies are not legally binding and are grounded in ‘state sovereignty’. The common complaint it seems from several nations currently is that any foreign body directing a nation how to enforce it’s laws would be the exact definition of “affecting a nations sovereignty”. Personally, I take more interest why a compact would form for something like this at all if nothing it did would be legally binding.

IN CONCLUSION...A PETITION FOR TANGIBLE SOLUTIONS

At the end of the day the cumulative effect of both previous and current border and immigration policy over the years has left a terribly functioning system. Our own involvement with the cartels not only enabled them to thrive in our country, but also provided them the means to become such a threatening force so close to home. Likewise much of the instability that breeds large fluctuations of asylum seeking refugees can also be traced back to foreign operations we were involved in. Through our minimal enforcement of laws barring businesses from hiring undocumented workers, our use of the outdated e-verify, and years of developing infrastructure that depended on citizens of other countries for labor we ourselves set the groundwork for never ending employment of undocumented workers. In our corporate oligarchy’s quest for money where the rich hold the power over the laws many sectors of our country have enabled and furthered illegal immigration as it allows for far more profits. The drug trafficking into our country was initially aided by our own intelligence agencies, and whether or not this is still the case it is clearly apparent what the CIA once thought was a good idea clearly was not. Now we see endless drugs flooding our streets, kidnapped children sold on the black market and thousands each year sold into sexual slavery and snuck into our country as prostitutes. The problems with these cartels is no way limited to South America alone, other worldwide rings have learned to exploit our northern border as it regularly goes unnoticed or patrolled.
America has a long history with periodic movements that push back against the current norms of immigration. Often times when there is a large increase in asylum there are too economic hardships at home, and increased spending in cases like foreign war or military intervention. Often citizens in many of these eras have initially lashed out at the people who migrated here and started anew. Often times when new labor enters the open market willing to provide the same service for a reduced cost it creates an upset as already struggling American workers find they are unable to charge quite so much for the same service. Thanks to the labor laws created after the great depression, and the increase in trade unions legal immigration does not anymore create quite the same hardships it did in the 1800’s. The larger issue now is that a person from outside the U.S. who enters illegally holds the upper hand in the labor world as they can charge less and take home the same net amount by not paying taxes, and as a result they become more desirable as employees to many large outfits for both this reason and that the employer need not provide benefits. Each time in history that there has been a large push to reform immigration policy it has had a heavy correlation to jobs. Though circumstances were different each time, ultimately it came down to employment and economic hardships. In recent years there has been much more concern for border safety and security. Many cartels have stated publicly that no matter what the U.S. does, they will continue to operate.
In the perpetual bickering in the mainstream about non-threatening workers who do cross illegally and shouldn’t, it is often overlooked that border security is needed to curb serious problems that efforts right now are not at all helping with. The drugs entering our country illegally, human trafficking, border patrol corruption, and proper screening for trafficking victims requires not only wide spanning investigations, but training, more personnel, and much more. If the human trafficking trade is not combated through increased security thousands of women and children will continue to die yearly during their excursions, as well as be directly slaughtered by gangs for a host of reasons. America has definitely tightened down on border security in recent years but truthfully the only measure of good border policy would be both a reduction in illegal crossings as well as a system that can handle all of its yearly asylum claims the same year they are received. Likewise, a functional system that has access to our data capabilities should also be capable of facilitating the claims of true refugees in dire need in far less time than 2 years. The policies that exist today harm all people involved for as long as targeted steps are not taken to end the hiring of undocumented workers, they will be brought here as pawns to corporate America only to be deported back to their home country to never be allowed legal citizenship in the future. Our leaders promise us solutions to these issues and yet we see no progress with anything. Not only are American workers still frustrated, but many people are also being harmed in so many ways by the cross-border cartel operations on a daily basis. The citizens want a secure border, and not just for their own security but also because over the years there has been a direct correlation between border security and positive change. As media focused on undocumented workers, traffic across border slowed immensely. Likewise as border patrol was increased, likewise did many statistics decrease. A secure border ensures a reduction in human trafficking and ensures the safety of Americans living not far from constant gang activity.
Likewise with the world appearing to be headed into another period of war and chaos our borders are in no way staffed or geared to defend in the case of a foreign invasion. No war has been fought on U.S. soil in a very long time, and should the event suddenly occur it would be disastrous for those living here. As it stands the current staffing at the border cannot deter the routine criminal activity that has persisted for years, this can be nothing other than a clear indicator of how prepared our defenses are should we be met with military force. With our soldiers currently tied up in many places around the world there are an unimaginable number of scenarios we could experience right now and be entirely unprepared for. The only way to actually address safety concerns and crime affecting both Americans and those from other countries is by both amending the current policy in a way that is both fair to immigrants and refugees, but also addresses the valid concerns of existing citizens. Likewise, the mistakes of previous generations cannot be repeated, and active measures must be taken to address the root causes and not the symptoms. History has proved sufficiently by now that deporting people does not stop illegal immigration. Through foreign policy reforms regions can be stabilized again in a way that facilitates an environment citizens need not flee any more. Likewise domestic policy requires reform weighting heavy undesirable penalties onto corporations still hiring undocumented workers. These businesses need to be viewed more in a sense that they are a perpetrator in a cycle that hurts both the migrants as much as Americans. Sanctions against American companies for utilizing these tactics could likely not only curb the number of people outside the law, but also provide a means of funding a resolution to the backlog of immigration cases and a proposed amnesty. Americans across the spectrum have created a petition to address our border security as well as ensure a fair deal for those already here:

READ AND SIGN THE BIPARTISAN PETITION CREATED BY “WE THE PEOPLE”

-Adam Rice

SOURCES USED

https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/u-s-immigration-before-1965


https://www.history.com/topics/immigration/us-immigration-since-1965


https://www.nps.gov/cham/learn/historyculture/mexican-american-war.htm


https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/mexican-american-war


https://www.history.com/news/operation-wetback-eisenhower-1954-deportation


https://ips-dc.org/the_cia_contras_gangs_and_crack/


https://www.lawfareblog.com/drug-and-migrant-smuggling-across-us-mexico-border-interview-natalia-mendoza


https://humantraffickingsearch.org/protecting-unaccompanied-mexican-migrant-child-trafficking-victims/


https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/deadly-human-trafficking-business-mexico-border-160117073423022.html


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/mexican-woman-border-child-traffic


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328253798_Sex_Trafficking_at_the_US_Borders_Victim_Characteristics_Amber_Alert_Grant_funded_by_2017-MC-FX-K003_from_the_Office_of_Juvenile_Justice_and_Delinquency_Prevention_OJJDP_US_Department_of_Justice


https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/mexico704/video/video_index.html
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/536/


https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-migrant-caravan-and-those-that-came-before/


https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-us-refugee-system-work

https://www.usccb.org/about/resettlement-services/upload/Refugee-Assistance-2.pdf
https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/migration-compact

Additional Resources:

https://www.circa.com/story/2016/11/28/world/a-top-human-rights-activist-said-the-us-is-meddling-with-mexicos-sex-trafficking-laws

https://people.howstuffworks.com/what-is-ms13.htm

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/ms-13

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39645640

https://time.com/4184368/drug-cartel-gangsters-ioan-grillo-book-excerpt/

https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-drug-trafficking

The Gele Hesjes in The Netherlands Hold A Large Multi-National March

       Today in the Dutch city of Maastricht contrary to the narrative in mainstream news, thousands marched today in manifestation of the Gele Hesjes, or Yellow Vest Movement. The number of attending in the news lists only 800 people, but according to sources who were there it was actually 2,135 people marching in the first multi-nation march to date. The arrests were minimal, as the Gele Hesjes are a nonviolent movement. The incident happened when one protester was using fireworks that hit another person. A Yellow Vest member was attempting help the person when he was attacked by a police officer. He responded by saying “why are you hitting me you idiot?” and was arrested. The person involved was subsequently released after 4 hours. In the news article listed, you can truly see the disconnect between what happened in reality, and the narrative pushed by media outlets. It is alleged that the fireworks were thrown intentionally at an individual, when the truth was it was simply an accident and the person arrested for ‘insulting’ was actually attempting to aide the injured person.

       The Dutch Gele Hesjes are standing against their Prime Minister Rutte who is involved with the corrupt globalist Bilderberg Group. Maastricht was chosen for this National March because it is there that they made a monetary union (the euro) via the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Before today, the Gele Hesjes have been running each Saturday since December 1 at the Limburg Capital. Mark Rutte is of the VVD Political Party in the Netherlands and has a disastrously low approval rating. Many protesters are calling to leave the EU among standing up to changes over the past few years that make it harder for citizens. People are finding they have to travel further to doctors appointments where hospitals have closed, and they see their solution to that and many other things in their society as being binding referendums. They call for unity in this time because they need everyone to make this happen, and urge people to stay vigilant in recognizing ‘divide and conquer’ tactics, and advocate too for taking a stand against fake news. They want to use these binding referendums so all people can vote on reforms regarding taxes, healthcare, market forces, distribution of their prosperity, immigration and asylum policy, regulation from the EU, and to ensure the elected officials must represent the people first. On their groups page, they want Democracy as it was intended and that if the people don’t agree with their leaders choices then they will go back to the drawing board as they put it. Similar to the Gilets Jaunes in France, they too are advocating for the people setting parties aside and use binding referendums to course correct their socio-economic system as a whole.

       There were also protests held in Belgium today. Organizers gathered at the IKEA furniture department where they called out the fact that this company makes Million’s in profit yet continues to terminate employment. They expressed anger with the company destroying too many forests to make their products, and that they are not contributing a fair tax share as a large business proportional to profit. The protesters also manifested at a local Coca-Cola plant where they voiced similar complaints. In another page out of the Netherlands it talks about how this was a big event for the Gele Hesjes as it was the first time a concise message was seen, and there were French, Belgian, and German citizens standing behind it today in Maastricht. This location in particular is significant to all Europeans due to the treaty mentioned above. Before 1992 the EEG existed and worked fine, but as many agree the people in power wanted more and thus the Euro was born. Now most of these countries are standing up to the EU and want more citizen involvement in government through binding referendums. Like most countries who have taken up this call, they want real Democracy and do not view a system where you vote politicians in every 4 years as being that. Many Dutch who feel this way do so with supporting evidence in their Remkes report, where it was hinted in December that Dutch Democracy is not working good enough for the people.

       One thing is abundantly clear, this idea is spreading like wildfire across the globe. Each country seems to be experiencing the same issues in their own way. The solution is always the same, true democracy and the people having much more power over the laws being created in their countries. I’ve been inspired by the Dutch from the start as they have been vigilantly nonviolent and that can be seen in the fact that the only arrest made was for calling a policeman an idiot. Today marks a giant success for the Gele Hesjes as they not only held their first large march, but they did so with individuals from all over Europe!

-Adam Rice

February 2, 2019

Sources used outside of people who were actually there:

www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/02/02/honderden-gele-hesjes-protesteren-in-maastricht/

www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2019/02/honderden-bij-anti-eu-protest-van-gele-hesjes-in-maastricht/

Gele Hesjes NL On Facebook

MARK RUTTE BEING ASKED ABOUT INVOLVEMENT WITH BILDERBERG AND WHY HE PLAYED ROLE IN ATTACKING LIBYA:

FOOTAGE OF TODAYS MARCH:

France Dabbles In Preventative Arrests

       In France, another result of the Gilet Jaune movement has been preventative arrests, and recently two men were arrested before having even attended a protest. On January 29 Arthur Breton and his friend Theo were required to appear in the Nanterre Criminal Court under the guise of “grouping for the preparation of violence or damage” and “transport without a weapon, category D”. The driver refused to submit fingerprints and received a third charge for this.
These individuals were just 2 of the hundreds of citizens arrested on December 8th during the fourth day of protests as part of this movement. Many of the people arrested were for the actual rallies many of us eventually saw, but unlike them, these individuals never even made it to a rally. At 9:00 AM the two men were stopped at a road check in Villeneuve-la-Garenne (Hauts-de-Seine). At first the police asked to see the paperwork for the vehicle, but when they saw chrome paint and a tire bar in the vehicle they proceeded with an illegal search and arrests. The item in question was a safety item to lock your steering when while a car is parked to prevent theft, though the police refuse to call it anything other than an Iron Bar. Inside the car was not found yellow vests, breathing masks, or other items to indicate these men were headed to a protest, and neither had criminal histories. Both gentlemen swear they had not been in the city to mobilize with the Gilets Jaunes, and they had simply spent the night in the city and had been borrowing their mothers car.


       It is being called collective hysterization, in that people are recklessly placed under judicial control before having committed a crime. The prosecutor involved feels there is enough evidence to justify criminal charges at this point leaving all other parties involved nearly speechless. On December 8, 1,082 people were arrested which was the largest single-day arrest total since the movement began on November 17. Those arrested recall the words of the Minister of Justice who urged all prosecutors to “achieve massive preventative controls” in response to the climate at the time. The problem being argued by these defense attorneys that these laws could not have been solving any serious issues if the people being arrested clearly were not intent on protesting. As they noted, the only crime committed here was not even having a yellow vest in the car. The individuals were ultimately acquitted of their charges but this event marks a notable change in the legal system of France. If you aren’t careful they will arrest you for what they think you are doing, and not what is factually correct.

-Adam Rice

February 2, 2019

Original Article by Le Monde [FR]

France Introduces Bill To Ban Protests

       As of January, 2019 it is becoming more likely that laws will be passed to prohibit protesting in France on a wide scale. The proposed law contains 8 articles and 263 amendments which would give the police the ability to stop demonstrations as well as search all people and vehicles involved. The French have held long debate sessions in regard to these new laws, and despite that some provisions have been implemented already. On February 5 a full vote will be held on the proposals and many have complained publicly that this will strip the rights of the people further. Aurelien Tache, a member of the majority was quoted saying “We can restrict the freedoms only in very specific cases, under the control of the judge. Common law can not establish a system of restriction by principle and freedom by exception. This is what the germ is in this law.”

There are three measures in particular that have led to people having such serious issues with these laws being passed. The first is the possibility to search all vehicles near a demonstration to confiscate “weapons by destination.” The second is that the prefect can prohibit demonstrations entirely. The last being that covering your face would result in a 15,000 euro fine and 1 year in prison. The law was proposed by their Senate Republican Bruno Retailleau who is also the Minister of Interior. Christophe Castaner was quoted saying “We have chosen to defend the millions of French who cannot do more than that of a few thousand brutes” at the introductory debates at the National Assembly. These words set the tone for how the Government has taken an extreme approach to dealing with the Yellow Vest protesters in the past months. Despite all the debates, the text still has not been changed much.

       Articles 1 and 2 have been debated the most so far as people have the most concerns with these parts. Article 1 in the first version allowed similar precautions to the 2016 Euro football game, where the prefect could permit police to search anyone in a targeted area. In the end the police listened to the Government, and the mention of these measures disappeared due to the public prosecutor. It soon expanded to include all vehicles and luggage as well, so that police could confiscate anything capable of being used as a weapon. These laws would allegedly go into effect 24 hours before an event, and Secretary General of the Union of Judiciary Vincent Chamoillaux was quoted saying ” It’s very vague, we can consider a weapon to be some quite unusual things. We risk falling into a fairly extensive practice justifying many arrests just because you have a flagpole to carry your flag.”
Nicolaus Krameyer on Amnesty International added that “people will not necessarily be prosecuted, but they have been deprived of liberty up to 48 hours and it will be registered in their criminal record when they were just protesting. This would be one more way to justify massive arrests, such as those practiced by the 1st and 8th of December, where they had also used a putative offense grouping to commit violence.” Another individual interviewed named Ugo Bernalicis says he doubts this will change anything happening currently. “It’s ridiculous. Today, when you go to protest, already, in fact, you are searched and you cannot go protest if you refuse. This is the display.” Article 2 as well would allow individuals to be banned from protest for 1 month if they harmed an individual or destroyed property. Any failure to comply with this would result in being jailed for 6 months and a 7,500 Euro fine.

       Vincent Chamoillaux went on record to say “We reverse the logic of the presumption of innocence, without contradictory procedure, the prefect will be able to forbid you to protest and it is up to you to contest. The criteria are extremely vague and allow them to aim wide.” A dozen members of the majority tabled an amendment to delete the article and Aurelien Tache who wrote it was quoted saying “Prefects today would not do anything. But tomorrow another power could have an extremely broad appreciation of the ban on demonstrations. I am very, very concerned about this.” He also added that the safeguards proposed by the MP and LREM Parliamentarians were refused, and the only thing removed was the ability to search the property of relatives to these demonstrators.

       Article 3 requires people who have been banned from protesting to register on the wanted persons file, like the sex offender registry but for basic criminal offenses. Article 4 was adopted on January 30 to prevent the concealment of ones face and punish with a fine and jail time. Ugo Bernalicis commented on this too, saying “The fine is already very little pronounced, and when there are, many are lifted because there is a case law that says wearing a balaclava is not hiding your face.” Basically, the measures remain the same according to several sources interviewed. Its still debatable when these measures will take effect as it is a bill it cannot be expedited. It could take several months to pass through the Parliament before its constitutionality is weighed.

       Dunja Mijatovic of the European Council for human rights was quoted saying the following when asked about the possibility of this case being brought before her court: “From such measures, the proportionality of which seems to me questionable, do not seem to me to be necessary to guarantee the freedom of assembly effectively and may, on the contrary, be perceived as an obstacle to the exercise of this freedom. In such a delicate context, I invite the government and the legislator not to go in this direction and to privilege the ways of dialogue and to guarantee respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” It would seem that many are aware of how these laws can result in improper use, and the reduction of freedoms provided in their constitution, and only time will tell how it all plays out.

       For me, I can absolutely agree with the sentiment to stop violence and destruction on all sides of the Yellow Vest movement. I also can see many ways these laws could ultimately be used against the French. How hard would it be to pay people to act out at an event, and use the actions of the few to systematically jail anybody willing to speak out against the Government? The ways these laws can be used against the people only lead me to the notion that perhaps they appear to stem from a place desiring an end to violence, but in fact only want to quell the frustrations of their people by silencing them. A large piece of these movements deals with corrupt politicians, and a disconnect between the ruling class and the people. It would seem only logical to me that if the French government wanted to end these protests they would be listening to the people more, not less.

-Adam Rice

February 2, 2019

Original French article located here!

More on the law to conceal ones face being illegal. [French]

MORE RESOURCES:

Get the UN out of the US, and why

The United Nations (UN) was conceived out of necessity in 1941, after the League of Nations failed to preserve international peace. The UN officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, and France, as well as a majority of the other signatories, had ratified the United Nations Charter (BPA, 2005).

 

The countries who are in the UN give a percentage of the taxes collected from its people to keep it running. This is how it was in the beginning and it did a pretty good job. It would be over a half-a-century before corruption started to seep its way into the UN. This corruption would come in the form of privatized corporate donations.

The changes in funding practices have deep implications for global governance. Private funding runs the risk of turning UN agencies, funds and programs into contractors for bilateral or public-private projects, eroding the multilateral character of the system and undermining democratic global governance. Multilateral mandates become increasingly difficult to carry out, as a profusion of earmarked projects undermines coherence, planning and coordinated action. The engagement of corporations and philanthropic foundation with UN organizations and their influence on global policy-making in general raise several concerns (University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017).

By the early 90’s the UN had changed its agenda from preserving international peace, to an agenda of bringing the world together under one ruling government and a New World Order (NWO). This proposal was presented in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. It was called the UN agenda 21. This has now been changed to the UN agenda 30.

On the outside this agenda looks good and presents a utopian like one world society. It teaches the public new words like sustainable energy, green living and introduces us to political correctness. It tells us that we can all live side-by-side through open borders and teaches us how to downsize our own lives to fit into this utopian world society.

What the UN agenda 30 really means will be forced mass migrations, taking land ownership away from the public sector and giving that land to the private corporate sector to manage. Our cars will be taken from us and we are to be moved into sustainable regions that will feed the population within that region.

The blighting of the public sectors has been happening for a few decades now. Once an area is marked for “blighting” (which means it does not sustain the population within that sector), police are told to no longer prioritize that area. It slowly becomes a high crime area. Strict regulations are made and imposed in that region. Zoning is changed. It becomes intolerable and often time inhabitable for the people living within that region. They find themselves forced off their land.

What happens to the land? Because of the new zoning regulations, the public sector is no longer allowed ownership.

There is so much more to the UN agenda 30 but I will let the readers do their own research. All the information is public. You just need to know where to look and how to look. They are required to give everyone public notice. The problem with the public notice would be it is buried deeply and broken up into pieces and housed within different Non-Government organization’s (NGO) that have been started by the private corporations that now run the UN.

It is time for the UN to get out of the U.S and here are some reasons why:

  1. The amount of money that is given to the UN from this country could go towards universal healthcare, education, and the homelessness in this country.
  2. American taxpayers cover 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That does not include the three special interest organizations- the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which require $100,000,000 every year.
  3. Then there are over a dozen other U.N. agencies and operations that American dollars also support.

If you would like more information about the UN and UN Agenda 21 I would recommend Behind the Green Mask by Rosa Koire.

Cited material:

  1. (2005). The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 – October 1945. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm
  2. (n.d.). Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/dumbartonoakspro00amer/dumbartonoakspro00amer_djvu.txt

Seitz, K., & Martens, J. (2017). Philanthrolateralism: Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1758-5899.12448.