There are Trillions at Stake

3 man example,,,
Interesting,

Excellent post!!

CIA isn't going anywhere.

Stealing secrets doesn't require a lot of talent. The design of JWICS and SIPR makes it a risk that for some odd reason, the US Government accepted. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

You named a small handful of execs, only ONE of which was a CIA employee. EVERY organization including your local school board is going to have trash. Interesting how all the corruption happens at the highest levels....but rarely rank and file.

And the rank and file of CIA are legit. I started my association with them in 1986, and would later do some joint projects. Some of my former students of mine are CIA employees, both contractor and government.

Anyone popping off about some tin foil hat BS without anything to substantiate a claim is a mental midget having no direct experience, parroting BS written on the walls in a subway station men's room.

The modern global economic system is the creation of Harry Dexter White, the father of the World Bank and the IMF, a Soviet agent.

*Complete article for context*

President Trump is disrupting decades of multinational financial interests who use the U.S. as a host for their ideological endeavors. President Trump is confronting multinational corporations and the global constructs of economic systems that were put in place to the detriment of the host (USA) ie. YOU. There are trillions at stake; it is all about the economics; all else is chaff and countermeasures.

We are already familiar how China, Mexico and ASEAN nations export our raw materials (ore, coking coal, rare earth minerals etc.). The raw materials are used to manufacture goods overseas, the cheap durable goods are then shipped back into the U.S. for purchase.

It is within this decades-long process where we lost the manufacturing base, and the multinational economic planners (World Trade Organization) put us on a path to being a “service driven” economy.

The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.

Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.

The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.

The exact same exfiltration and exploitation has been happening, with increased speed, over the past 15-20 years with “CONSUMABLE GOODS“, ie food. Raw material foodstuff is exported to China, ASEAN nations and Mexico, processed and shipped back into the U.S. as a finished product.

Recent example: Salmonella Ritz Bits (whey); Nabisco shuts New Jersey manufacturing plant, moves food production to Mexico… the result: Salmonella crackers. This is the same design-flow with food as previously exploited by other economic sectors, including auto manufacturing.

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Bunge, Potash Corp, Cargill or Wilmar, stay out of the public eye by design. Most megafood conglomerates have roots going back a century or more, but ever-increasing consolidation means that their current corporate owners may have been established only a few years ago. Welcome to the complex world of Big Ag:

Start with the so-called Big Six [PDF]. Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF produce roughly three-quarters of the pesticides used in the world. The first five also sell more than half the name-brand seeds that farmers plant, including varieties modified for resistance to the very pesticides they also sell. Meanwhile, if farmers want fertilizer, a list of 10 other companies, starting with PotashCorp, account for about two-thirds of the world market.
Once the plowing, planting, nurturing, and harvesting are done, around 80 percent of major crops pass through the hands of four traders: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus. These companies aren’t just financiers, of course—Cargill, for example, produces animal feed and many other products, and it supplies more than a fifth of all meat sold in the United States.
And if you ever had any ideas about going vegetarian to avoid the conglomerates, forget about it: ADM processes about a third of all soybeans in the United States and a sixth of those grown around the globe. It also brews more than 5.6 billion liters of ethanol for gasoline and pours more than 2 million metric tons of high-fructose corn syrup every year. And it produces a sixth of the world’s chocolate. {Continue – and go Deep}

Multinational corporations, BIG AG, are now invested in controlling the outputs of U.S. agricultural industry and farmers. This process is why food prices have risen exponentially in the past decade.

The free market is not determining price; there is no “supply and demand” influence within this modern agricultural dynamic. Food commodities are now a controlled market just like durable goods. The raw material (harvests writ large) are exploited by the financial interests of massive multinational corporations. This is “contract farming”.

If U.S. supply and demand were the sole aspects of the domestic market price for food, we would see the prices of aggregate food products drop by half almost immediately. Some perishable food products would predictably drop so dramatically in price it is unfathomable how far the prices would fall.

Behind this dynamic we find the international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.

When we understand how trade works in the modern era we understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.

♦ The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.

It doesn’t.

Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.

The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.

In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.

The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.

U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.

Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:

♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs (harvests an raw materials), and ancillary industries, of developed industrial western nations. {example}
♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. (*note* in China it is the communist government underwriting the purchase)
♦ The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA having been replaced by the USMCA; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.

There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.

For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?

Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”

What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.

Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1:

♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.

This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.

Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.

A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)

However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).

Bulletpoint #2:

♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.

…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.

National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3:

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.

Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.

Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.

If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.

The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.

The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.

A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.

Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.

EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).

Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.

With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.

In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.

In Mexico and underdeveloped countries when government officials take payments from companies, cartels and corporations, we call that system “corrupt”. However, in the U.S. when politicians take the same payments we call it “lobbying”; the process is identical.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4:

♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.

The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).

Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.

Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.

Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)

Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.

The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.

Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).

This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.

The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).

‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.

Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.

This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.

Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.

RELATED:

♦The Modern Third Dimension in American Economics – HERE

♦The “Fed” Can’t Figure out the New Economics – HERE

♦Proof “America-First” has disconnected Main Street from Wall Street – HERE

♦Treasury Secretary Mnuchin begins creating a Parallel Banking System – HERE

♦How Trump Economic Policy is Interacting With The Stock Market – HERE

♦How Multinationals have Exported U.S. Wealth – HERE

You sound like a 1986 federal dinosaur living in denial trying to glorify yesteryear.

Get over yourself.

The company is done, kaput, finissimo. They’re left with ranks of screwups who think they’re hot shinola.

Nothing can bring them back.

They are OBSOLETE.

The NSA and its larger spawn the NGA are today’s premier intel force. Tomorrow it will be the United States Space Force.

And the siren song of Socialism calls to them that this is the failure of Capitalism which is a lie
...

Yep, exactly...nice reply and analysis...thank you

True. Creation of Value (which creates wealth) vs the Capture of Value (stealing from each other) is the turning point imho
(Voted for Ross Perot twice. “That giant sucking sound”)

Those who still think the corona virus isn’t planted with help from our CIA or other globalist nefarious plots after reading this - I can’t help you escape from Neverland. Wake up. PDJT thwarts their cash flow and power, Get it??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The plot thickens with fact beyond conjecture.

Read the full article:

“COVID19 Files – Scientific Investigation On Mysterious Origin Of Coronavirus”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3820695/posts

And you sound like a tin foil hat idiot.

Sit back and watch the CIA NOT disappear. HUMINT never disappears. Ever.

> “HUMINT never disappears.”

Correct but the Clowns will go the way of the Pinkertons shoved aside by the FBI, all to be replaced by a loyal force of patriots with superior technology.

War between NSA and Clowns in America
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-q-group-the-directorate-hunting-down-edward-snowden

DiogenesLamp: "That's what a lot of people don't grasp.
Washington DC works according to a lot of rules other than what people think.
At the bottom of it all is money."

The 1860 Republican Party platform included 14 "planks" covering matters from slavery & secession to the transcontinental railroad.
Plank #6:

"6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded."

Republicans were elected in 1860, just as in 2016, to "drain the swamp" in Washington, DC.
Democrats, then as now, went berserk realizing their loss of political power.

>>BroJoeK wrote: “The 1860 Republican Party platform included 14 “planks” covering matters from slavery & secession to the transcontinental railroad. Plank #6: That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Republicans were elected in 1860, just as in 2016, to “drain the swamp” in Washington, DC. Democrats, then as now, went berserk realizing their loss of political power.”

Joey’s posts are always deceptive. The horrendous plunder of the average taxpayer’s wealth by crony-capitalism began before the ink was dry on the Constitution by the deception of the nationalist (progressive-consolidationalist) Alexander Hamiltion, and was continued by the nationalists’ John Marshall, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Dishonest Abe, among others.

The true republican party was the party of Jefferson. Republicanism, by definition, is anti-democratic, anti-majority-of-the-people rule. Rather, it is the super-majority-of-the-states rule.

Lincoln promoted the democratic majority-of-the-people rule. In other words, the so-called “Republican Party” of Abraham Lincoln are the modern-day RINO’s and Democrats. The true republicans of today are those in the mold of the limited-government types, like Jesse Helms. I am a Jesse Helms republican.

Mr. Kalamata

Danny Kalamata: "Joey’s posts are always deceptive.
The horrendous plunder of the average taxpayer’s wealth by crony-capitalism began before the ink was dry on the Constitution by the deception of the nationalist (progressive-consolidationalist) Alexander Hamiltion, and was continued by the nationalists’ John Marshall, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Dishonest Abe, among others."

Our Danny-child's words are all lies.
He was taught by his parents to lie and now knows nothing different.
The truth behind his lies is that Kalamata hates our Founders, hates our Constitution, hates our country, and most especially hates Republicans.

What he loves are the 1787 anti-Federalists, anti-Constitutionists, anti-Founders, anti-Americans, slavers, nullifiers, secessionists, Confederates & segregationists.
In short, Kalamata is a Dixiecrat, or, more kindly, a Southern Democrat.
But his claims to be a "conservative Republican" are, like everything else, lies.

Kalamata: "The true republican party was the party of Jefferson.
Republicanism, by definition, is anti-democratic, anti-majority-of-the-people rule.
Rather, it is the super-majority-of-the-states rule."

Jefferson's 1808 plan for massive internal improvements:

And still more lies!
The true "Old Republicans" lead by John Randolph were in opposition to President Jeffersonian's Democrats when Jefferson wanted millions of dollars for vast internal improvement projects.
And again contrary to Kalamata's endless lies, Jefferson is noted for leading the expansion of eligible voters to include nearly all free white men.

As for his alleged "super-majority of the states" rule, Pres. Jefferson sought no such "super-majority" to approve his Louisiana Purchase, an action which he himself acknowledged was unconstitutional.

Kalamata: "Lincoln promoted the democratic majority-of-the-people rule.
In other words, the so-called “Republican Party” of Abraham Lincoln are the modern-day RINO’s and Democrats.
The true republicans of today are those in the mold of the limited-government types, like Jesse Helms.
I am a Jesse Helms republican."

Jesse Helms was a strong limited government Southern Democrat turned Republican in 1970, seemingly less because he loved Republican views but more because Democrats had gone insane, there was no other choice.
Helms supported Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1976.
But I've seen no reports that any of Helm's Southern Democrat views changed when he flipped to Republican.
In that sense, Helms was a Republican in Name Only.

On the other hand, I've also seen nothing to suggest that, like Kalamata, Helms rejected the entire constitutional history of the United States, from our Founders Federalism to antebellum Whigs & Republicans, to post-war civil rights amendments (as originally understood).
Rather, it seems Helms became a Republican in the tradition of western North Carolina's anti-secession Unionists.

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Our Danny-child's words are all lies. He was taught by his parents to lie and now knows nothing different. The truth behind his lies is that Kalamata hates our Founders, hates our Constitution, hates our country, and most especially hates Republicans. What he loves are the 1787 anti-Federalists, anti-Constitutionists, anti-Founders, anti-Americans, slavers, nullifiers, secessionists, Confederates & segregationists. In short, Kalamata is a Dixiecrat, or, more kindly, a Southern Democrat. But his claims to be a "conservative Republican" are, like everything else, lies."

As usual, Joey's post is deceptive; but, in all fairness, he could simply be as dumb as a box of rocks. For example, Joey is on record claiming Alexander Hamilton was a federalist and Jefferson was anti-federalist, when the opposite is true. That is pretty dumb. Joey also promotes the Hamilton-Marshall-Clay-Lincon mercantilist system of big-government crony-capitalism as both constitutional and as federalism. That is dumber than dumb! The editor of a newspaper owned by Madison and Jefferson explained Hamilton's deceptions as a series of rules. These are a few, with my annotations in square brackets:

"Rule 4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away [e.g., Hamiltonism 101.] Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made."
"Rule 5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy [anything-goes big-government] with a representative republic [limited, constitutional government,] that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter..."
"Rule 11. As soon as sufficient progress in the intended change shall have been made, and the public mind duly prepared according to the rules already laid down, it will be proper to venture on another and a bolder step toward a removal of the constitutional landmarks. Here the aid of the former encroachments and all the other precedents and way-paving maneuvers will be called in of course. But, in order to render the success more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare" [e.g., make it a living constitution.] If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to the ignorant, and be called by the artful, opposing the "general welfare", and may be cried down under that deception.
[Freneau, Philip, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]

Deceitful nationalists, like Joey and Hamilton, tend to misapply labels by confounding the words democrat with republican (as Freneau mentioned in Rule 5,) and anti-federalism with federalism.

Our Constitution is legally a federal compact (a contract) between the several states, like Jefferson and most of the framers envisioned; and is NOT a national, majority-rule, living-constitution democracy as envisioned by Hamilton, Joey, and other anti-federalist consolidators.

****************

>>Kalamata: "The true republican party was the party of Jefferson. Republicanism, by definition, is anti-democratic, anti-majority-of-the-people rule. Rather, it is the super-majority-of-the-states rule."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Jefferson's 1808 plan for massive internal improvements: [chart]"

Internal improvements are constitutional, Joey, provided 3/4ths of the states ratify an Amendment authorizing that power to the general government. Otherwise, their implementation by the general government would constitute tyranny.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "The true "Old Republicans" lead by John Randolph were in opposition to President Jeffersonian's Democrats when Jefferson wanted millions of dollars for vast internal improvement projects."

I am certain many limited-government republicans opposed them, from a federal perspective; but that doesn't matter one way or the other. The only thing that matters in a republic is whether or not a power has been delegated to the general government, either by enumeration in the Constitution, or via an Amendment.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "And again contrary to Kalamata's endless lies, Jefferson is noted for leading the expansion of eligible voters to include nearly all free white men."

Abe Lincoln was a white-supremacist and white-separatist.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "As for his alleged "super-majority of the states" rule, Pres. Jefferson sought no such "super-majority" to approve his Louisiana Purchase, an action which he himself acknowledged was unconstitutional."

He admitted it was a usurpation, Joey. I believe what Joey is try to say is, "Tommy Jefferson usurped the Constitution, so it is okay for Alex Hamilton to usurp it." I cannot imagine any argument more juvenile.

****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln promoted the democratic majority-of-the-people rule. In other words, the so-called “Republican Party” of Abraham Lincoln are the modern-day RINO’s and Democrats. The true republicans of today are those in the mold of the limited-government types, like Jesse Helms. I am a Jesse Helms republican."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Jesse Helms was a strong limited government Southern Democrat turned Republican in 1970, seemingly less because he loved Republican views but more because Democrats had gone insane, there was no other choice. Helms supported Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1976. But I've seen no reports that any of Helm's Southern Democrat views changed when he flipped to Republican. In that sense, Helms was a Republican in Name Only."

Joey is again confounding the doctrine of the big-government Democrats/RINOs with that of the Jeffersonian republicans. Jesse Helms was well-known for his limited-general-government, states'-rights stances.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "On the other hand, I've also seen nothing to suggest that, like Kalamata, Helms rejected the entire constitutional history of the United States, from our Founders Federalism to antebellum Whigs & Republicans, to post-war civil rights amendments (as originally understood). Rather, it seems Helms became a Republican in the tradition of western North Carolina's anti-secession Unionists."

As usual, Joey's post is deceptive, and completely lacking any historical reference.

BTW, I knew absolutely nothing about Jesse Helms until 1999 when my new Philadelphia employer touted Helms as the best thing to happen to the United States since Grover Cleveland (whom I also knew nothing about.)

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "As usual, Joey's post is deceptive; but, in all fairness, he could simply be as dumb as a box of rocks.
For example, Joey is on record claiming Alexander Hamilton was a federalist and Jefferson was anti-federalist, when the opposite is true.
That is pretty dumb."

I'm not certain if "dumb as a box of rocks" is the correct term for Kalamata, he certainly seems plenty smart enough.
"Delusional" would be a kind term for him, LSS (lying sack of... stuff) probably more accurate.
In this particular example, by historical definitions, Federalists & anti-Federalists were originally those who supported or opposed the 1787 Constitution.

Federalists wrote the US Constitution and supported its ratification -- that certainly includes men like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but not Thomas Jefferson.

Anti-Federalists were those who first opposed the 1787 Constitution and later the Washington & Adams administrations.
Those included such notables as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and, yes, Thomas Jefferson.

Kalamata: "Joey also promotes the Hamilton-Marshall-Clay-Lincon mercantilist system of big-government crony-capitalism as both constitutional and as federalism.
That is dumber than dumb! "

Again, I dont' think our Dan-child is "dumb", I think he just enjoys lying so much he can't control it, can't stop himself from doing it.
In this case, he's referring to the Federalists political party of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Marshall.
These are the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, it's their opinions we refer to with the term "Founders' Original Intent".

So our Dan-child was taught as a boy that these Federalists were the bad-people and that the good-guys were those who opposed the Constitution -- the anti-Federalists -- like Patrick Henry & Samuel Adams as later lead by Jefferson & Madison.

Kalamata: "Deceitful nationalists, like Joey and Hamilton, tend to misapply labels by confounding the words democrat with republican (as Freneau mentioned in Rule 5,) and anti-federalism with federalism."

Again we have to ask if Kalamata is just dumb, or deceitful?
In this case the 1792 propaganda piece by Jefferson & Madison against the Pres. Washington & VP Adams administration was adopted in full by the succeeding Jefferson & Madison administrations.
And when Presidents Jefferson & Madison began to expand Federal powers, they were opposed by the old Federalists like, yes, John Marshall.

Kalamata: "Our Constitution is legally a federal compact (a contract) between the several states, like Jefferson and most of the framers envisioned; and is NOT a national, majority-rule, living-constitution democracy as envisioned by Hamilton, Joey, and other anti-federalist consolidators."

As always, Kalamata is lying.
Jefferson was not a Framer, he was an anti-Federalist in 1788, anti-Administration in 1789 and Democratic-Republican in 1792, opposed to the Federalists party of Washington & Adams.
Jefferson opposed ratification of the original Constitution, insisting it needed a Bill of Rights.

And, Jefferson continued to oppose the Founders who ratified the Constitution from 1788 through 1800, on grounds of "strict construction", but then abandoned "strict construction" once he became President in 1801.
Then opposition Federalists became "strict constructionists".

As for an alleged "living Constitution", that terms comes from Kalamata's fellow Southern Democrat, Woodrow Wilson in 1908, in a book called "Constitutional Government in the United States".
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself had ideas on the subject:

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors [19]"

Of course, that's exactly why the US Constitution provides for Amendments and Conventions of the States, but Jefferson himself felt no need for such in cases like the Louisiana Purchase or the Cumberland Road.
Only when his own Old Republicans (i.e., John Randolph) insisted, did Jefferson submit a request for Amendment to authorize his proposed Internal Improvement projects (which Randolph promptly killed).

Kalamata: "Internal improvements are constitutional, Joey, provided 3/4ths of the states ratify an Amendment authorizing that power to the general government.
Otherwise, their implementation by the general government would constitute tyranny."

So let's take a few moments to look at which Founders supported and which opposed what were then called "Internal Improvements", today we say "Infrastructure projects".
This table covers subjects mentioned by Kalamata and other Lost Causers as somehow being contrary to Founders Original Intentions:

Founder / Early Leader	Party	On Slavery	Protective Tariffs	National Bank	Internal Improvements	On Rebellion/Secession
Pres. Geo Washington	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Whiskey Rebellion
Pres. John Adams	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Approved Alien-Sedition Acts
Alexander Hamilton	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Supported Alien-Sedition Acts
VP Thomas Jefferson	anti-Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	No	No: opposed Alien-Sedition Acts
Pres. Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	Yes	Arrested Aaron Burr for treasons
Pres. Madison	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes/NO	moved army to stop Hartford secession
Henry Clay	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Alien & Sedition Acts
Pres John Q. Adams	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Muscogee Removal from GA
John Randolf	leader of Old Republicans	pro-slavery	No	No	No	Unknown

The only one here consistently opposed to "Internal Improvements" was Old Republican John Randolph.
All the others consistently supported, or flip-flopped over them.
Internal Improvements were Founders Original Intent.

Kalamata: "I am certain many limited-government republicans opposed them, from a federal perspective; but that doesn't matter one way or the other.
The only thing that matters in a republic is whether or not a power has been delegated to the general government, either by enumeration in the Constitution, or via an Amendment."

When Federalists Presidents Washington & Adams were in charge, anti-Federalists like Jefferson opposed their Internal Improvements projects on grounds of "strict construction".
When Jeffersonian Democrats like Presidents Jefferson & Madison were in charge, Federalists and Old Republicans (i.e., Randolph) opposed their Internal Improvements projects on grounds of "strict construction".

Kalamata: "Abe Lincoln was a white-supremacist and white-separatist."

Every Confederate, without exception, was more racist than Lincoln.

Kalamata: "He admitted it was a usurpation, Joey. I believe what Joey is try to say is, "Tommy Jefferson usurped the Constitution, so it is okay for Alex Hamilton to usurp it."
I cannot imagine any argument more juvenile."

Except, of course, all of your own arguments here.
My standard is, "Founders' Original Intent", meaning, where our Founders agreed, I'm on their side, not on yours, Dan-child.

Kalamata: "Joey is again confounding the doctrine of the big-government Democrats/RINOs with that of the Jeffersonian republicans.
Jesse Helms was well-known for his limited-general-government, states'-rights stances."

I'm no expert on Helms but I doubt if he was as insanely anti-American as Kalamata.
I notice, for example, where Helms supported President Nixon in the 1972 election, was ready to defend him against impeachment in 1974, and Nixon was far from a "strict construction" conservative.
So, near as I can tell, Helms was a rational conservative, not a lunatic anti-American like Kalamata.

Kalamata: "BTW, I knew absolutely nothing about Jesse Helms until 1999 when my new Philadelphia employer touted Helms as the best thing to happen to the United States since Grover Cleveland (whom I also knew nothing about.)"

Helms was in the news a lot, for decades, usually portrayed unfairly, but as consistent a conservative as any I can think of.
I never knew him to be insanely anti-American like Kalamata.

At best, it is disingenuous to refer to an anti-Federalist as “anti-American”.

As to “internal improvements”, the Federal Reserve is not even remotely one of them... unless one considers legalized counterfeiting & theft of wealth from the middle class, followed by transfer of said wealth to the uber-wealthy as “improvement”.

Mercantilism is an economic theory that advocates government regulation of international trade to generate wealth and strengthen national power. Merchants and the government work together to reduce the trade deficit and create a surplus. It funds corporate, military, and national growth. Mercantilism is a form of economic nationalism.

The first revolutionary war was fought for the most part, against British mercantilism. That isn't taught in school for reason. Rush Limbaugh left this out of hos children books too.

The CIA is corrupt, so is the FBI and the DOJ. If you don’t think so then you are an idiot.

So is my local PTA, grocery store, City Hall, bus terminal.......humans are corrupt. What is your point?

There are also fantastic people and programs in each of the organizations you mentioned.