“Collectively, the issues call into question not only whether the nation’s government can be trusted but also whether the leadership itself can. All of this has Obama on the verge of losing the already waning faith of the American people. And without their confidence, it’s really difficult for presidents to get anything done — particularly those in the second term of a presidency and inching toward lame-duck status.

The ramifications stretch beyond the White House. If enough Americans lose faith in Obama, he will lack strong coattails come next fall’s congressional elections. Big losses in those races will make it harder for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, especially if it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, to run as an extension of Obama’s presidency and convince the American public to give Democrats another four years.

Obama seemed to recognize this last week. He emphasized to anxious Americans that the other two branches of government were as responsible as the White House for signing off on the vast data-gathering program.” -AP LINK

So considering the above connection for responsibility to all three branches of government in the latest deployment of constitutional undermining initiatives, I have to ask myself this: Where did the buck stop?

The Department of the Treasury is an executive branch, yet there was no oversight* from the executives, for the IRS targeting 501(c) exempted groups because of their party affiliation. Remembering that absolutely no one responsibly informed POTUS that the IRS was going to take a hit, while it’s in the process of rolling out and enforcing socialized healthcare as well as what some consider the largest tax increase in the history of this country, POTUS did in theory, stop the buck. No worries, “We the People” trust that guy.

*”Oversight” because it is a vast reach into every aspect of the governments operations and almost always a complete waste of time.

Moving along to other questionable initiatives, like seizing phone records, gun running operations, attacks on our consulate oversees, kill lists; We cover a broad spectrum of branch involvement and as usual, what should be a ton oversight. Seems like POTUS stopped the buck on those as well. It’s alright, he’s still our guy.

So what makes “PRISM” the hot potato? My thoughts… This could be the one that finally detailed to the country as a majority that the government is “our” oversight. They want to, are capable of & aggressively working towards being in every aspect of our lives. That being said, this one may need the full cooperation of all three branches to disappear.

Two awesome articles I recommend:

CURL: Why Obama scandals aren’t scandals at all

COLUMN: MOUNTING CONTROVERSIES ARE ALL ABOUT TRUST

To Download: Click the image to enlarge it, right/ctrl click, choose “Save image as..”.

I sat on this for a few days to think about what was actually happening, before I jumped right into it.  Than today I read this article  and felt like I could write something.   Well that…. And the fact that it’s been quite some time since I have posted anything on this amazingly succulent site at all! That I have missed ever so dearly by the way…  Okay… Enough with my issues and  the sappy stuff.  Let’s get down to Brass Tax.

I think this is happening for two reasons.   #1.  The physical isn’t there!  In my opinion I believe it’s very possible that HKMEx  has defaulted on it’s delivery contracts/obligations, and  is hence; forced to seize all trades.  #2.  With metals being traded by denominating U.S. dollars,  Asia denouncing U.S. debt, reckless monetary policy, Asia trying to slowly ween itself from the Reserve currency, and start to trade metals in the renminbi (RMB).  Number two is more probable, but it’s hard to say based upon how much corruption is going on in the global financial system right now.

As the story develops, regardless of the outcome. It should be interesting. I will let you draw your own conclusion, and I would also like to point out that in the articles posted below that Contracts: are not directly always tied to the physical metal itself.. Keep that in mind when you’re reading.  Hope everyone is doing well, and I plan to be  more active with the website now that I am settled into my new place.

Related to this topic:

Physical Demand For Asian Savers

Irregularities at Hong Kong Exchange “Serious ones”

Check it.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

Here is a lesser known court case, nothing violent. Looks like they added a little bit of other stuff in the beginning.

Thanks to JeremyHopper007 for the Video.

By binaryloop | I’ve lived all over the US and found that most Americans love liberty but, get fooled into partisan politics. My goal is to wake people up and help them see it’s not about left or right — it’s about freedom!

The right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China. It has been used throughout history to justify various rebellions, including the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

The right of revolution was perhaps first articulated as part of an official state philosophy by the Zhou Dynasty of China (1122 – 256 BC). To justify their overthrowing of the earlier Shang Dynasty, the Zhou kings promulgated a concept known as the Mandate of Heaven. This basically stated that heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased and withdraw its mandate from a despotic ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would transfer to those who would rule best. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed on.

In Europe, the right of revolution can be traced back to the Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, which required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a “security clause” that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force if needed. The Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional documents (including the US Constitution). Another important document, The Golden Bull of 1222 , was an edict, issued by King Andrew II of Hungary. This established the rights of Hungary’s noblemen, including the right to disobey the King when he acted contrary to law (jus resistendi).

The concept of the right of revolution was also taken up by John Locke in Two Treatises of Government as part of his social contract theory. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate (property); under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation.

Some philosophers argue that it is not only the right of a people to overthrow an oppressive government but also their duty to do so. Professor Morton White writes of the American revolutionaries: “The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely important to stress, for it shows that they thought they were complying with the commands of natural law and of nature’s God when they threw off absolute despotism”. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “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”.

Alexander Hamilton justified American resistance as an expression of “the law of nature” redressing violations of “the first principles of civil society” and invasions of “the rights of a whole people”. For Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence was a last-ditch attempt of an oppressed people. His litany of colonial grievances was an effort to establish that Americans had met their burden to exercise the natural law right of revolution.

Descriptions of the right of revolution differ in whether that right is considered to be a natural law (a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere) or a positive law (a law enacted or adopted by proper authority for governing the state). An example of the dual nature of the right of revolution as both a natural law and as positive law is found in the context of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence invoked the natural law right of revolution but, it was not the sole justification for American independence. English constitutional doctrine also supported the colonists’ actions. By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public oppression”. Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time immemorial”. The Declaration of Indepence’s long list of grievances declared that this bargain had also been breached.

This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force. This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers (and the people could reclaim them) if government breached this constitutional contract.

The law of redress had limits like the right of revolution under natural law. The law of redress, like the right of revolution, was not an individual right. It belonged to the community as a whole, as one of the parties to the original constitutional contract. It was not a means of first resort, or response to trivial or casual errors of government. Blackstone’s Commentaries suggested that using the law of redress would be “extraordinary” (for example: if the king broke the original contract, violated “the fundamental laws”, or abandoned the kingdom). During the Stamp Act crisis of the 1760s the Massachusetts Provincial Congress considered resistance to the king justified if freedom came under attack from “the hand of oppression” and “the merciless feet of tyranny”. A decade later the “indictment” of George III in the Declaration of Independence sought to end his sovereign reign over the colonies because he violated the original constitutional contract.

Legal historian Christian Fritz described the role of the right of revolution during the American Revolution and stated that American independence was justified by conventional theories under Anglo-American constitutional thought at the time about the people’s collective right to cast off an arbitrary king. Fritz says: “Both natural law and English constitutional doctrine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppression”. But these understandings about the right of revolution on the eve of the American Revolution rested on a traditional model of government. That model posited the existence of a hypothetical bargain struck between a king and a people. Fritz goes on to say: “In this bargain, the people were protected by the monarch in exchange for the people giving the king allegiance. This was a contractual relationship. American revolutionaries accused George III of breaching his implied duty of protection under that contract, thereby releasing the people in the colonies from their allegiance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypothetical contract gave rise to the subjects’ right of revolution—grounded on both natural law and English constitutional doctrine”.

Although many declarations of independence seek legitimacy by appealing to the right of revolution, far fewer constitutions mention this right or guarantee this right to citizens because of the destabilizing effect such a guarantee would likely produce. Among the examples of an articulation of a right of revolution as positive law include:

New Hampshire’s constitution guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution’s Bill of Rights:

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The Kentucky constitution also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.

Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania’s constitution, under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution states:

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

North Carolina’s constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:

3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

The Constitution of Texas also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Facebook Shuts Down Site Of Gun Shop Giving Away AR-15

Facebook reportedly shut down the page of a Pennsylvania firearms store that was giving away semi-automatic weapons in support of the Second Amendment.

Erik Lowry, owner of Pittsburgh Tactical Firearms in McKeesport, Pa., claims his store’s Facebook page was shut down following an AR-15 giveaway launched earlier this year, according to ABC’s WTAE Pittsburgh. On Friday, he received a message from Facebook informing him the page was deactivated, but he received no further explanation.

Back in February, Pittsburgh Tactical Firearms made headlines when the store gave away hundreds of rounds of ammunition, dozens of high-capacity magazine clips and an AR-15 assault weapon. Prospective contestants had to “like” the Facebook page and share with friends to be entered in the contest.

Lowry explained to radio station NewsRadio 1020 KDKA that an AR-15 could come in handy for customers to “defend themselves from a tyrannical government,” a right provided by the Second Amendment.

It began as a Christmas contest, but many later construed it to be a protest of President Barack Obama’s push for gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14, Lowry previously told The Huffington Post.

The owner, who claims his business is losing thousands of dollars each day because of the alleged blockade, thinks misinformation regarding the giveaway is to blame for Facebook shutting down his page.

I wonder why Facebook would take this stance…
Hmmm…

A video timeline illustrating how the Federal Reserve system came into being and it’s effects on the U.S. economy.

~Ben Swann

(FOX19) – At no time in recent history has the country been so dramatically divided over the issue of guns. Unprecedented new laws are being proposed across the nation and gun owners are taking very vocal stands. Ben Swann takes a look at the growing divide.

Video~SavageNationLiberty

• Air Vehicles Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, is already developing prototypes of tiny drones that can hover
• The Micro Air Vehicles will work in swarms to provide complex surveillance of a battlefield
• They can also be armed with incapacitating chemicals, combustible payloads or even explosives ‘for precision targeting capability’
  

By Michael Zennie

The U.S. Air Force is developing tiny unmanned drones that will fly in swarms, hover like bees, crawl like spiders and even sneak up on unsuspecting targets and execute them with lethal precision.

The Air Vehicles Directorate, a research arm of the Air Force, has released a computer-animated video outlining the the future capabilities of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs). The project promises to revolutionize war by down-sizing the combatants.

‘MAVs will become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future,’ the narrator intones.

‘Unobtrusive, pervasive, lethal – Micro Air Vehicles, enhancing the capabilities of the future war fighter.’

Anonymous: Warning We Are Awake (2013)

When will we wake up? When will we finally figure out what is right in front of us?
When will we rise up?

These people can’t be serious. They can’t be blind to the torture they suffer at the hands of tyranny… can they?

For the love of humanity please wake up, or everything you know and love will cease to be.

LG~