In a statement, Ministry of Social Development associate national commissioner Te Rehia Papesch said it was an important part of security that they knew who was coming into their sites.
“Our security guards are having a conversation with people before they come into our offices to quickly discuss why a person is there, and helps to make sure we don’t admit anyone who might represent a risk to the safety of other clients or our staff.
“People will be asked for ID – any form of ID. But we know not everyone carries this at all times so I can reassure people that not having ID won’t mean people can’t come into a Work and Income office.”
Beneficiaries’ advocate Kay Brereton said the ministry had told her 21 people had so far been turned away for not having ID, but she suspected the true number was far higher.
In my last article, ‘How Globalists Predict Your Behavior’, I outlined the primary method globalists use to measure public consent, or, public dissent. The use of macro-analytics and the hyper-monitoring of Web traffic is a powerful tool at the disposal of the establishment for gauging shifts in public consciousness in real-time.
For example, in early 2016 the elites were entirely aware of the rise of conservative and sovereignty movements in the U.S. and Europe. In fact, the dangers of growing “populism” were all that elitists and their publications talked about for the first six months of the year. At first, this notion seemed a little odd to me. Generally, when globalists are attempting to manage public opinion, they are careful not to reveal the slightest hint that conservative movements exist beyond an “extremist fringe.” They certainly never suggest that there is a massive undercurrent of nationalism ready to topple the globalist structure.
In fact, whenever such movements do arise the establishment is swift to obstruct them or co-opt them. I witnessed this first hand during the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and 2012 – the mainstream deliberately refused to acknowledge Ron Paul’s existence, because attacking him repeatedly would have been a zero sum strategy that would have given him greater public attention and free publicity.
I saw it during the Neo-con co-option of the Tea Party, a movement that I was involved in long before Fox News latched onto it and long before mainstream RINO Republicans not only jumped on the bandwagon but hijacked the horse. In a matter of months the Tea Party became a defunct entity, a shell of its former self. Luckily, most liberty activists simply left it behind and started their own separate groups and projects rather than being absorbed into the Neo-con fold.
I also saw establishment interference on a local and state level during elections in Montana. An associate of mine was running for state office on a liberty platform and was doing rather well in the polls. He was approached by a contingent of political elites running as Republicans who told him in no uncertain terms that he could run on any platform and use any rhetoric he wanted, but if he won, he would be required to follow THEIR direction. They even encouraged him to continue arguing for constitutional government in his speeches and debates, because they felt this was the best way to “sell” his candidacy. But when all was said and done, he was supposed to stab his constituency in the back and take orders from the party leadership.
The point is, the elites dominate the political system. Nothing happens within it without their say. So, for those same elites to suddenly and openly suggest that “populist movements” were threatening to overtake the world and destroy the global economy was suspicious, to say the least.
In order to predict the behavior of globalists and the outcome of future economic and political events, it is important to understand certain dynamics. As just described, the establishment has a stranglehold on the political system. Party politics are a sham built around the false left/right paradigm. However, certain new dynamics are developing, and you must be able to track them.
The best way to do this is to watch what globalists say within their own publications. They often reveal their intentions directly or indirectly. In many cases I think in their arrogance they assume that the masses are too stupid to read these publications and grasp what is being said.
The most important element of predicting globalist actions is to know what they ultimately want; to know their ultimate goals. If you know the specifics of what any group or individual desperately wants, those people become highly predictable, because there are only so many useful paths to get to any goal.
I have used this method to great effect over the years, so I am not merely presenting a theory, I have concrete successes to back my position.
Except for the China SDR inclusion, I predicted all of these events many months in advance and received a heavy amount of criticism each time from people in the mainstream and even from people in the liberty movement. Hilariously, as soon as these predictions proved true, some of the same people that were fervently opposed came quickly out of the woodwork to claim they “saw it coming all along.” I suppose this is human nature, but it is a problem because it keeps people from learning how to better gauge globalist behavior and come to correct conclusions.
My goal in this article is to make EVERY liberty activist adept at predicting globalist driven events. So, here is a good place to start:
Learn To Play Chess
The elites are obsessed with chess and chess symbolism. Many of their strategies develop much like a game of chess develops. If you don’t know how to play chess, I suggest you learn. You don’t have to master the game, but you do need to understand the basic concepts of winning the game.
For example, if you know the target that your opponent is really pursuing, you can easily obstruct his efforts because all his movements will become predictable. If his goal is to take your Queen, and you know this, then he should never be able to take your queen. This is why the elites go to great lengths to distract their opponents (meaning us) from their true target. They want you to think they are going straight for your King, or your Knight; they want you focused elsewhere. They will use feints often.
Another core strategy of chess is the “forced sacrifice.” That is to say, the best chess players are very good at positioning one of their pieces so that it threatens two or more of your pieces. This forces you to sacrifice one piece for the sake of the others. If they do this often enough, before you know it you have sacrificed your way into defeat. The globalists ALWAYS have a primary target and a secondary target. There is always more than one move developing at any given time.
Knowing chess is key to knowing how the globalists think.
Get In Touch With Your Darker Side
Going by their behavior and their rhetoric when they are unguarded, most globalists display highly narcissistic character traits as well as sociopathy and psychopathy. It is not enough to research these traits in a clinical fashion, you have to tap into the darker side of your own psyche, and think as they think. This means being willing to entertain evil and malicious concepts. You must be willing to ask yourself – “If I were them, how would I go about getting what I want?”
Understanding devious and aberrant psychopathic intent goes a long way in making the globalists predictable. Remember, many psychopaths are actually highly intelligent and intuitive. They don’t have a moral compass and have lost the voice of conscience, but in order to adapt they have learned how to fake it. They are chameleons.
ALL people are inherently capable of evil actions, just as they are inherently capable of great good. You don’t have to become like the elites, but you do have to go to some ugly places in your own mind. An elitist is basically a person who went to those places and discovered that he liked it there.
Read Globalist Publications
As noted above, the globalists have their own media outlets in which they publish their “views,” such as Foreign Policy Magazine, The Economist, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. Sometimes these views are honest and sometimes they are calculated propaganda. Again, if you know exactly what the elitist targets are, then you can better discern if what they are saying is legitimate or a feint to distract you.
I predicted the success of the Brexit and the Trump win based on the knowledge that:
1) The globalists need a large-scale crisis in order to drastically change public perceptions on society and governance. That is to say, they need to create a crisis so terrifying that people will be willing to accept a fully centralized global economic system and global governance as a solution.
2) The globalists have already set in motion an economic crisis that cannot be reversed. It is a crisis that they must avoid blame for at all costs once it accelerates.
3) Conservative and sovereignty principles are the primary threat to the dominance of globalism. As long as ideas of individualism, national sovereignty and decentralization exist, globalism can never truly prevail. Therefore, obstructing movements based on these principles is not enough. The globalists must also destroy any positive perceptions of our principles for generations to come.
4) As stated in the section on chess, the globalists like to use the strategy of forced sacrifice, in which they threaten two targets simultaneously, or kill two birds with one stone. I realized at the beginning of 2016 that all the rhetoric by globalists in their own publications on the “rise of populism” was staging the groundwork for the success of the Brexit and the success of Trump. What better strategy for the establishment than to allow conservative movements to take the helm of the political and economic ship just as that ship is about to sink? In this way, the globalists can have the crisis they need, while at the same time scapegoating conservatives and avoiding blame, and, destroying the image of conservative ideals, perhaps forever.
Have No Sacred Cows
This is a hard one for many people. We all have certain biases and these biases can blind us to reality. The overreaching bias within the liberty movement is a desire for heroic leadership. We have grown up on stories of heroes from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson – grand statesmen and military giants that crushed tyranny. The problem is, while men like Washington and Jefferson were indeed instrumental, they were nothing without the hundreds of thousands of unsung patriots working tirelessly for freedom on their own.
The founding fathers were not considered the founding fathers until long after the American Revolution was over. At the time, they were not thought of necessarily as heroes or even great leaders. They were just men, like many other men, gambling life and liberty on a cause that was uncertain at best.
Activists need to STOP looking around for mighty leaders and start taking leadership themselves in their own way. If we do end up with another Washington or Jefferson or Paine or Madison, etc., we will not know who they are until the fight is over and the history books are written.
The globalists take full advantage of the movement’s weakness in seeking out and artificially elevating heroes. Also, when people have this bias, they end up with blinders when examining such heroes with any skepticism. Obviously I am referring to Donald Trump, here.
Sacred cows prevent accurate predictions of major events because a person will refuse to consider them as a potential negative factor.
Moving Beyond Predictions
It is one thing to be able to predict the outcome of social and political events; it is another matter to do something about them. In my next article I will outline solutions liberty activists can pursue on their own and in groups to counter globalist activity. Predicting their tactics is essential, but acting to disrupt those tactics should be the ultimate goal.
The globalists believe that even if some of us do manage to decipher their activities and methods, we will have no means to do anything about them. They see themselves as the “history makers,” as the men who act. They see us as the “history watchers,” or the meaningless masses wafting about with geopolitical tides, helpless and incapable of determining our own destinies. I believe we will become history makers in due course. One weakness of the globalists that will sabotage them is their own hubris. They see people as pawns – but what happens when a piece walks off the chess board completely and acts in an unpredictable way? It is this potential alone that will destroy the globalists in the end.
You can read more from Brandon Smith at his website Alt-Market.com, where this article first appeared. If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
This is a coup: Homeland Security takeover of US elections
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
This is a coup: the Homeland Security takeover of US elections
On a scale of importance from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most important, this breaking development is a 500.
By Jon Rappoport
On Friday, the traditional day of the week for quietly releasing big news that will hopefully be ignored by the public—and also obscured by the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting—the chief of Homeland Security announced that his office will be taking over US elections.
If you can’t see the coup in progress, you need to keep looking until the message comes through.
Read carefully—ABC News reports. My comments are in brackets:
“Citing increasingly sophisticated cyber bad actors and an election infrastructure that’s ‘vital to our national interests’, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson announced Friday that he’s designating U.S. election systems critical infrastructure…”
[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]
“‘Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law’,” Johnson said in a statement. He added: ‘Particularly in these times, this designation is simply the right and obvious thing to do’.”
[Also known as: “we’re taking over.”]
“The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin ‘ordered’ an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.”
[Also known as: “we needed an excuse, a fake cover story for our takeover, and Russia is it.”]
“Such a change [in who controls the US election process] does not require presidential action [or Congressional approval], and only requires the secretary [of DHS] to first consult with the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.”
[Also known as: “this is a coup by the White House.”]
“Johnson said election infrastructure included storage facilities, polling places and vote tabulation locations, plus technology involved in the process, including voter registration databases, voting machines and other systems used to manage the election process and report and display results.”
[Also known as: “We’re taking over every significant aspect of the national election process.”]
“The designation [of US elections as critical infrastructure] allows for information to be withheld from the public when state, local and private partners meet to discuss election infrastructure security – potentially injecting secrecy into an election process that’s traditionally and expressly a transparent process. U.S. officials say such closed door conversations allow for frank discussion that would prevent bad actors from learning about vulnerabilities. DHS would also be able to grant security clearances when appropriate and provide more detailed threat information to states.”
[Also known as: “we can intercede in the election process and determine its outcome without any need to pretend we’re being transparent; only people we approve will know the details of how we run elections; secrecy works.”]
“The Obama administration has proposed international cyber rules for peacetime that would expressly note that countries shouldn’t conduct online activity targeting critical [US] infrastructure, which will now also include election systems.”
[Also known as: “in case there is any doubt, elections systems in America will be property of the federal Executive Branch.”]
This is a coup.
This is equivalent to declaring a national state of emergency, including martial law: the DHS, if it deemed it necessary, could utilize armed agents to enforce the new directive and take over states’ offices that resist.
Election-processes belong to the states. But not anymore.
And of course, with this awesome new power, the DHS could intercede, behind the scenes, in the voting process and rig elections.
There is an additional aligned factor at work in this op: the proposed elimination of the Electoral College—yet another measure designed to “federalize” the election process.
Most people are entirely ignorant of the fact that the Constitution was a pact among states. With reluctance, the independent states agreed to relinquish certain specified powers to the newly created central government, while retaining all other powers.
The Electoral College was, therefore, a natural invention, because the states would maintain crucial influence in determining the outcome of presidential elections. State Electors would cast their presidential votes based on which candidate won in their state.
Eliminating the Electoral College now would add one more layer of federal control over the whole country, and take control from the states. More centralization.
Imagine it. Only the popular vote counts. The states are dumped. And on top of it all, the Dept. of Homeland Security has the power to run the election process as a piece of “critical infrastructure.”
Rigging the vote in New York and California, plus a few other populous states, would decide the election. And in time, no one would think about “New York” or “California” as separate entities—because they wouldn’t be. They would just be “more land and people” that are part of “wholly unified” America.
This is perfect for the “unity politicians” who spout empty rhetoric every chance they get—“we’re all in this together.” As I tirelessly point out, such slogans are nothing less than covert ops, and their goal is roping in as many dullards as possible under a messianic banner of A Better Life for All under a Beneficent Government.
Also known as: we the rulers decree, you the people submit; your survival depends on us; we give and take as we will, and that shall be the whole of the law.
Eventually, why have presidential elections at all? Just allow the DHS to determine which candidate will best serve the needs and desires of the controllers.
It’s cleaner, simpler, and more direct.
It’s a coup.
Will Trump cancel it?
Obama is basically challenging him to do it—which would create one more firestorm in the press directed at Trump.
“See, the new president just stopped the DHS from protecting our sacred free elections. Trump is exhibiting more treasonous cooperation with his Russian masters…he’s leaving the door wide open for their secret invasion against our liberties…”
The timeline is clear. One: Hillary will surely win the election. Two: Trump won the election. Three: Trump won because Russia “hacked the election” in his favor. Four: We must protect our national election process from foreign hacking. Five: Homeland Security must put itself in charge of national elections.
Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.
SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.
This terribly destructive legislation was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California’s state government with a two-thirds “supermajority.” To their credit, they are sincere in their belief that decriminalizing underage prostitution is good public policy that will help victims of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side.
The unintended but predictable consequence of how the real villains — pimps and other traffickers in human misery — will respond to this new law isn’t difficult to foresee. Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution — which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.
As Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, a national leader on human trafficking issues, told the media, “It just opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse.” Another prosecutor insightfully observed that if traffickers wrote legislation to protect themselves, it would read like SB 1322.
Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex. That only deepens their victimization and renders law enforcement powerless to stop the cycle of abuse. SB 1322 is not simply misguided — its consequences are immoral.
Unfortunately for Californians, SB 1322 isn’t an outlier — it’s only the tip of the liberal iceberg. 2017 will see the Golden State subjected to wave after wave of laws taking effect that are well-intentioned but disastrous embodiments of progressive utopianism.
One such new Democratic-authored law throws open the door to even greater government dependency on the part of the poor by rolling back proven reforms. In 1996, welfare reform was one of the greatest social legislation achievements of the last century, ending the lifetime welfare system and putting millions of Americans on the road to self-reliance and self-respect. In its wake, California lawmakers passed a law barring increased payments to women who have more children while still on welfare, in order to encourage women to achieve independence before having more children.
It’s a tough provision that works — which was apparently irrelevant to Gov. Jerry Brown, who just signed a bill repealing that prohibition. Henceforth, no matter how many children someone has while on welfare, the state government will ratchet up payments with each child, with no limit. Incredibly, the Democratic author of this bill claims she wants to discourage women from having more children while on welfare — but instead passed legislation replacing that effective reform with a law that restarts the cycle of welfare dependency
WHILE BLAMING TRUMP FOR “ARMS RACE,” OBAMA SIGNS MOMENTOUS “STAR WARS II” SPACE-BASED WEAPONS DEFENSE BILL
As politicians and mainstream media blast Trump’s apparently incendiary tweet regarding nuclear arms, none other than President Obama just signed legislation that, by striking a single word from longstanding US nuclear defense policy, could heighten tensions with Russia and China and launch the country on an expensive effort to build space-based defense systems.
The mainstream media has lambasted the president-elect for “endangering the world” and “starting another nuclear arms race.” However, that same mainstream media appears mute in their response to what President Obama just did…
The National Defense Authorization Act, a year-end policy bill encompassing virtually every aspect of the US military, contained two provisions with potentially momentous consequences.
One struck the word “limited” from language describing the mission of the country’s homeland missile defense system. The system is said to be designed to thwart a small-scale attack by a non-superpower such as North Korea or Iran.
A related provision calls for the Pentagon to start “research, development, test and evaluation” of space-based systems for missile defense.
Together, the provisions signal that the US will seek to use advanced technology to defeat both small-scale and large-scale nuclear attacks.
That could unsettle the decades-old balance of power among the major nuclear states.
Huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress approved the policy changes over the past month, with virtually no public debate.
Although the White House had earlier criticized the changes, it stopped short of threatening a veto. On Friday, Obama signed the legislation.
Leading defense scientists said the idea that a space-based system could provide security against nuclear attack is a fantasy…
“It defies the laws of physics and is not based on science of any kind,” said L. David Montague, a retired president of missile systems for Lockheed and co-chair of a National Academy of Sciences panel that studied missile defense technologies at the request of Congress.
“Even if we darken the sky with hundreds or thousands of satellites and interceptors, there’s no way to ensure against a dedicated attack,” Montague said in an interview. “So it’s an opportunity to waste a prodigious amount of money.”
He called the provisions passed by Congress “insanity, pure and simple.”
Republican Congressman Trent Franks, who introduced and shepherded the policy changes in the House, said he drew inspiration from former president Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Known as “Star Wars”, the initiative cost taxpayers US$30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.
Philip E. Coyle III, a former assistant secretary of defense who headed the Pentagon office responsible for testing and evaluating weapon systems, described the idea of a space-based nuclear shield as “a sham”.
“To do this would cost just gazillions and gazillions,” Coyle said. “The technology isn’t at hand – nor is the money. It’s unfortunate from my point of view that the Congress doesn’t see that.”
He added: “Both Russia and China will use it as an excuse to do something that they want to do.”
Finally, when asked whether the country could afford it, Franks replied: “What is national security worth? It’s priceless.”