Millenials 2

There is both a national and international plan underfoot. It is being carried out by the power elite. Their goal is to take away judicial jurisdiction out of the hands of the millennial generation as well as all future generations of U.S. citizens.The power elite are carrying out their plan in order to preserve wealth and power on a transnational level in their hands and the hands of their descendants.

Their immediate purpose is to subordinate Federal and State judicial jurisdiction defined by the United States Constitution under Article 3 as well as the 10th amendment.   That would put our highest courts under a new special global corporate legal jurisdiction called the ‘Investors State Dispute Settlements Court’. The consequence is that corporations through the court would then be enabled to sue nations for their projected corporate losses of ‘expected future monetary profits’. 

That new legal system called the ‘Investors State Dispute Settlement’ court is designed to dominate both Federal and State courts in matters relating to foreign corporate interests in the United States and throughout the pacific rim. That system would make U.S. citizens pay billions of dollars in fines if they pass laws to protect U.S. interests which conflict with and interfere with foreign corporate profits.

The plan is called the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. If it is signed into law by the next President of the United States, it will signal the first step to an end of United States Sovereign power and the beginning of direct multinational corporate control over the U.S. military, forever. 

It is an agreement made by the 1% to 10% of power elites defined by Forbes 400 Magazine in 2015, the 40 pacific rim nation prospective signatories, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and International Bank of Settlements. They all want the aggreement to be signed by President Barak Obama. He wants to sign it, too. He works for them.

Those parties and institutions want our Congress and the President to make the TPP agreement binding with no sunset clause in it. They want that because such a law will take away not only judicial jurisdiction over companies and nations doing business in the the United States but also to take away their right to bear arms which the power elite perceive to be a great threat to their growing power in the United States.

They want to limit legal jurisdiction of Federal and State courts, and they want total control over the U.S. military and the industries which support it.  In short, they want absolute power because the national political winds are no longer blowing in their favor. They can feel it pressing against their faces. 

They see before their eyes a political turn that is occurring and have marked it as a hinge period in U.S. political history. A period which has the potential to irreversibly change the course of world history against their interests.

They know that there will be no going back to the days when they could work in the shadows. They know that they must act now and they plan to do so under a Presidency of either Obama, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. For they see demographic, economic, and state and federal voting patterns are now threatening their power. 

Millennials pass Baby Boomers

The Millennials are making their political and economic frustrations and anger known to the world. The millennials are defined as those born between 1981 to those reaching the age of 18 years of age in 2016. In 2015, the millennial generation population is over 70 million; it has surpassed the baby boom population which numbered over 60 million persons born between 1945 and 1964.[1] Their postmodern political preferences are now being felt. Old political boundaries mean nothing to them; justice, the environment, and their future means everything to them.

During the recent democratic party nomination process, the effect of postmodern millennial culture was a political quake. More than 80% of all votes for democratic party socialist Bernie Sanders were cast by millennials. It was a clear statement of their collective sentiment for social change. For them, the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming president of the United States is cause for them to have high anxiety and for good reasons.

Hillary Clinton is unalterably tied to and personally loyal to Wall Street financial interests. Millennials know that her husband Bill Clinton signed into law the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 which set in motion the economic collapse of 2008. They know Bill Clinton signed into law the welfare reformation act. They know that Bill Clinton signed into law N.A.F.T.A. All at the behest of Wall Street and corporate interests. They know it has cost them uncounted thousands of jobs. They know that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who signed into law outrageous prison sentences for petty non-violent drug offenders.  They know that Hillary Clinton is duplicitous by design.

Millennials know that the Clinton Foundation has clear international conflicts of interests ranging from deals with shady individuals, foreign corporations to nation states such as Saudi Arabia. All of that underscores to millennials that there will be no respite from their lives of debt. Even now, 31% of all Federal assets are student loans over 1.2 trillion dollars.[2] The Federal Government has become dependent on students remaining in financial debt for student loans for life.


Millennials know that they are being slowly enclosed within the walls of a new kind of color blind global slave plantation. A plantation system which approximates the Roman Empire more than any other since ancient Rome. They know what that means for them. The ‘Fasces’ will be carried by a new global legal system with a mercenary global military to back it up. Millennials know that if they do not act now they will not have the freedom to act in the near future.

Millions of millennials are and will continue to be under employed at low paying jobs in the service sector economy and forced to live at home with their parents well into their 30s with no change in sight. They have therefore beaten a new path.

Millennials have sought an anti-neo-liberal and Republican path because they have no confidence in the political status quo. That has led the power elite to political panic and mayhem on the streets of America. For the first time in over 100 years we are seeing a democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, supported by both a fractured and corrupt democratic party combined with corrupt republicans. Republicans who have abandoned the GOP because a national revolt by disenfranchised grass root ‘white’ Americans have gutted the Republican Party.  

New political sentiments driven by a new born national conscience are threatening to redistribute the wealth of the power elite and restructure its armed guard…the sheriffs’ and police departments. Thus, the TPP is an instrument for the elite to maintain their wealth and power.

The TPP has an ultimate aim. Their aim is to take away Federal and State judicial jurisdiction over corporations in the TPP from all future generations of the U.S regardless of race and gender. They aim to do that because they know that if they don’t take away Federal and State judicial jurisdition over the TPP then any law passed in their favor under either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be repealed after one or the other leaves office. They know they have lost control over the two party system; thus they will be less able to manipulate nominees to power. The power elite know that a whole new political order is on the horizon. They are running frenzied at the mere thought of it.

Non white outnumber whites

The power elite face yet another problem looming on the horizon. It was reported by the Pew Research Center in June of 2016 that: “The bureau’s (Census Bureau) estimates for July 1, 2015, released today, say that just over half – 50.2% – of U.S. babies younger than 1-year-old were racial or ethnic minorities. In sheer numbers, there were 1,995,102 minority babies compared with 1,982,936 non-Hispanic white infants, according to the census estimates.”[3] Assuming conditions remain more or less the same, a higher birth rate of racial minority infants will continue resulting in a majority non-white U.S. population.

The days when the fallacious racial strategy of ‘appeal to the silent majority’ to garner votes are over. So now the power elite have a big problem because most of the wealth in the United States and the world is concentrated in the hands of a small group of about 10% of the white population. They can no longer rely on old majority numbers.

So what of the United State military? What role will it play? There has already been a corporate coup d’etat of the U.S. military. For example, it was reported by ‘Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics’ in Washington D.C. and ‘the Brave New Foundation’ that “…70% of retired three and four star generals took jobs with defense contractors or consultants.”[4]

That fact demonstrates that the U.S. military has been for over 100 years infiltrated by Wall Street and corporate money. Money and the manufacturers of war materials actually control the military just as police and sheriffs’ departments across the nation control city politicians when it is in their interests to do so.

The cooptation of the United States military by TPP courts will give TPP the global muscle to enforce its corporate legal jurisdiction as the military has done for domestic corporations since its inception.[5]

Finally, for the power elite, U.S. citizens must be disarmed. If Hillary Clinton is elected she will appoint a Supreme Court Justice or justices who will swing court voting in that direction. It will give the court a majority vote in some obscure case which makes its way up the court system. The Second Amendment will be so watered down that over time only shot guns will be lawful in one’s home.

The de facto repeal of the second amendment to the United States Constitution is viewed by the power elite as necessary. They see it as necessary because the power elite fear an armed citizenry and know it cannot be subordinated to tyranny whether that tyranny is foreign or domestic. If and when the above plans come to fruition it will be the end of the United States of America as a sovereign nation.

The Millennials and every generation which follows after them will lose their constitutional power to reverse decisions made by the Investors State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) court if they are not proactive in changing the political status quo.  




[1] Millennials Overtake Baby Boomers as America’s Largest Generation, Pew Research, 25 April 2016

[2] The Fed’s Financial Accounts: What is Uncle Sam’s Largest Asset? By Jill Mislinski, June 13, 2016

[3] It’s official: Minority babies are the majority among the nation’s infants, but only just…” by D’vera Cohen, June 23, 2016, Pew Research Center

[4] Report: 70 Percent of Retired Generals Took Jobs with Defense Contractors or Consultants, by Luke Johnson, Huffington Post, Nov. 20, 2012

[5] War is a Racket, by Smedly Butler



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment, United States Constitution).


Read carefully the two clauses: “Congress shall make no law 1)… abridging the freedom of speech and 2) or the press…” What those two clauses mean is that Congress cannot deny any citizen their right to speak or publish to the general public including the world public. But the right to speak and publish is double edged. Under the Constitution you may be legally deceived.


Freedom of speech in the United States does not limit a person, government, for-profit or non-profit corporation from lying to you.  Everyone in the United States has a LEGAL right to tell the truth or to lie to you. Once you understand this fact you will understand why there is so much controversy in media, economics, religion, and politics. Therefore, no person except under oath in a court of law can be prosecuted for perjury. There are only a few exceptions under the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Other government agencies are vague in their policies about lying to the public.


For example, in New World Communications of Tampa, Florida v. Akre, 866 So.2d 1231 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla. 2003) the court’s interpretation of FCC Section 448.102 concluded that “News broadcasters have no obligation to tell the truth.” this is so, they reasoned, because the FCC news distortion policy is not qualified as a law or statute.


Given these legal facts one should not be surprised that politicians make outrageous lies when campaigning. They know that their speech is legally protected speech as long as they do not tell such lies in a court of law under oath.  They even know that they can lie in court as long as they are not under oath.  But politicians are not the only ones who lie unabashedly to the public.


Media personalities also know that lying is protected speech. So, they purposely generate controversy on important issues to debunk truth or to simply deceive the public.


Religious spokes persons know that they too have a legal right to lie under the Constitution. Their lying far exceeds the lies politicians make because they preach more often to the public.  Anyone in the Unites States can claim that they are ‘God’ or God’s Messenger or that they are filled with the ‘holy spirit’.  They have a legal right to express that under the constitution. It does not matter that they are lying. No one or government can prohibit them from making such claims. Unlike politicians, such religious persons can even make such claims in a court of law under oath and not be prosecuted. So, what should truth seekers do under these circumstances? There is an easy solution to the problem of both lying politicians and religious frauds.


Every politician running for a national Federal office from president on down to the Congress should be made to submit to a lie detector test administered by neutral expert citizens from whom they seek votes not from his or her official party affiliates.


So egregious has the level of political and religious deceit become that every religious spokes person who makes a claim to divinity or the holy spirit or some other non-human mandate to speak to the people should be forced to submit to a lie detector test. Lie detector testing is standard practice in the FBI, CIA, DEA, the military, and in other high security venues of government.  Our personal security as citizens is just as important.


If in either case the party refuses to submit to a lie detector test they should be summarily dismissed as a liar and thus should get no support from the people or particular religious institution.


Lie detector tests are not admissible in a court of law as evidence to prosecute or support a claim for the plaintiff but they can facilitate the public with weeding out those who would deceive us.  You will be shocked at the numbers of political and religious liars who refuse to take the test or who fail it.


Welcome to Earth Colony: WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE!



Though the moral argument for a ‘just war’ has its roots in older Indian texts; the Western world traces the theory to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later schools of thought in Europe.  The idea is based upon ‘proportionate justice’.  Proportionate justice in turn is based upon the assumption that rewards and punishments can be meted out rationally and thus fairly.

The theory of just war belies yet another assumption.  That assumption is that moral people can determine whether or not an act of military aggression is justified based upon facts and if warranted how much aggression should be acted out on an aggressor.

They also argued that a war is unjust and illegitimate if it is rationalized on the grounds of ‘national self-interests’, ‘individual interests’ or if the people needed to support the war do not want war.  Here, they clearly assumed that a democratic scale of measure would be used to make decisions on war and peace.

One problem the American people face is that the plutocrats who have amassed control of Federal and State governments do not act upon moral grounds unless the consequences of doing so will benefit them.  We are left with this fact.  Plutocrats generally are amoral persons and some of them are evil.  Therefore, theological or philosophical moral arguments against a military strike on Syria would not be persuasive to them.

Yet another problem faced by the American people is the problem of ‘legality’.  One might think that even in the absence of theology and or philosophy at least there can be a consensus on rules or law.  But plutocrats bend, change, and ignore laws so that no matter what the circumstance their purposes are served.

The Constitution vests the American people with the power to declare war and to fund war.  Limited wars must also be approved by Congress.  Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has inherent war power.  That power is solely vested in the People who at the end of the day fight the wars and shed blood.  Nevertheless, the facts of history compel us to be on notice.

5,000 years of human history afford us not only a clear understanding about the nature of war and the kinds of persons who wage it but of the reasons for which war is waged.  War is waged to dominate, control, exploit, and profiteer off more peaceful folk and their resources.  Wars waged for those purposes are not waged on principles of legality.  On the contrary, they are waged outside of civilized law unless those laws benefit those whose intent is to plunder the wealth of others.

Therefore, arguments on the legality of a strike against Syria would not be persuasive to those who intend to wage war.  They push aside all rules of evidence that stand in their way.  For example,

One method used by the plutocrats is the ‘false-flag’ method. It is analogous to a police officer planting a gun on an innocent person or claiming that he or she saw a gun to justify either arresting or killing that innocent person.

Hitler used a false-flag to trigger the invasion of Poland.  Sixty million (60) dead later the Nuremberg War Crimes Hearing had to sort out and weigh the evil involved in World War 2.

Lyndon Johnson used a false-flag to arouse public sentiment for bombing North Vietnam.  Thirty five years later and over 50,000 dead Robert McNamara confessed that it was an unjust war. See the documentary: ‘The Fog of War’.

George Bush used a false-flag to argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and to arouse the American people to bomb and invade Iraq.  Now, over 50,000 casualties and 1.5 trillion dollars later it is generally acknowledged that the allegations against Iraq were false. Now, it is President Barak Obama.

The plutocrats in a faceoff with the American people subscribe to a Darwinian world view.  They are persuaded that conflict is a universal law of nature and that the stronger necessarily dominate the weaker in nature and so, too, in politics.  Theirs is an amoral theory of justice in an amoral universe, but they are rational.  It is the zero sum game; it is the game of ‘all or nothing’ they play.  So, what argument must be used by the American people to persuade them to stand down?

Only a utilitarian argument will persuade them. The American people must make a utilitarian argument to the plutocrats who have amassed control over the White House and much of Congress.  That argument to them must be that the cost of them acting against the will of the American people will immeasurably outweigh what they augur their gains or benefits to be from war with Syria.  They must be persuaded to understand that what Congress now knows is that a military strike against Syria is against the will of the people. They must be persuaded that torrents of rage will rain down on Congress and the lobbyist they are financially beholden to if the will of the people is ignored and that the rage will be unbearable.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has war power.  War power is solely vested in the People of the United States who at the end of the day are those who fight the wars and suffer loss of blood.  We the People must make it categorically and unequivocally clear to all that we, the People, are in charge of this government.




Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed


The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.





[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al


Book Cover Earthcolony

Chapter 10

A cosmological worldview governed by duality and proportionate justice is inevitably reflected in social relations between all governments and their citizens.  Since that theory of nature allows for no absolutes, i.e., truth.  It follows that lying is unavoidable, and thus necessary for the preservation of the State. In fact, it is the belief that the ‘lie’ in state-craft is absolute. Most of what the citizens know of the state is cosmetic or appearance or image; it is propaganda.  Plato emphasizes this again and again. The State operates on premises quite different than those which it promotes to the masses. In order for the plutocratic caste to accomplish the ends of government, Plato posits the importance of lying and secrecy which is a privilege solely possessed by their castes.[1]  One can never get to the truth in government because government is the lie that ‘government is necessary’. By deduction it follows that Plato’s reasoning leads to this conclusion.  Freedom is impossible in relation to government.  For freedom and government are mutually exclusive.  For that reason the State or Government is always idling on high anxiety; its enemies are everyone everywhere who impulsively struggle for wiggle room out of their bondage to the lie, to the State.

Again, and for our purposes, we trace his emphasis on the necessity for State duplicity to his basic theory of the division of existence into the three basic phases of 1) pure being, 2) becoming, and 3) non-being or nothing.  Now, corresponding to those three aspects of being is Plato’s epistemology, i.e., what is it that a citizen can know?  There are again three possibilities.  One can know the truth through pure being; one may have an opinion which is more or less truth mixed with more or less falsity through becoming and perishing; and, one can have an illusory kind of knowledge, i.e., one can be ignorant and thus know nothing.[2]

The kind of knowledge associated with each aspect of being follows necessarily as a result of his theory of degeneration from pure being.  The human form by virtue of its admixture with physicality or matter can only know some truth which is unavoidably mixed with untruth, i.e., opinion.[3]  So, for Plato the controlling principle of government must be deceit because it is the controlling principle of material being, i.e., the mixture of some truth and some falsity.  The premise is simple. Some truth and some falsity equal falsity. For him this rule of duplicity is manifest in the depths of human nature as a dialectical struggle between ego and instinct.  But that struggle is analogous to the point just made above and we are left here with this fact: some ego and some instinct equal instinct. Revolt of the masses therefore is inevitable. For the plutocrats, that means they must 1) repress, i.e., become increasingly totalitarian over the masses or 2) they must flee for their lives or 3) they must die.

We shall see in later chapters how the Platonic theory of deceit became an effective tool in the use of ‘treaties’ (lying) to set the stage for the alienation, suppression, and repression of Native Americans, the Hawaiian people, and finally the American people.












[1] Ibid, Book III, [382],[389] [414-416]

[2] Ibid, Book VII Allegory of the Cave [514-517], [532] also see Book VI, Plato uses an analogy: the good is to the soul what the sun is to the eye.[508][509] Lastly, for a full dialectical discussion see Book V {475-480]

[3] Ibid, Book VI, [508]: “…but when turned towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she [the soul] has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence?” [Italics mine]