Global Collapse Accelerating Buy Gold Now – Chris Martenson

William Stanley 01/30/2019  •

Mr. Hunter,
I’m not sure if it’s fear or greed; but I’m buying more gold tomorrow.

Zoe Chomsky 01/30/2019  •

TUCKER CARLSON: ROGER STONE RAID SHOWS THAT CNN IS NO LONGER COVERING ROBERT MUELLER. THEY’RE WORKING WITH HIM!

Allen Starr 01/30/2019  •

Another great interview that sheds light on what is really going on. Earlier I stumbled onto something that everyone should hear because this is a big part of why nothing makes any sense about what is going on in the US.
https://russia-insider.com/en/rts-chris-hedges-does-depth-series-sensational-al-jazeera-documentary-about-israel-lobby-us-video

andyb 01/30/2019  •

Greg: there are far more obvious reasons that life forms are disappearing other than unsustainable growth, whether population wise or economically. How about the radiation from Fukushima that has decimated Pacific marine life? Thus very few seagulls along the Pacific coast. There used to be millions; now their food sources have disappeared. Same with starfish, salmon, orcas, etc. How about all the pesticides, especially Roundup which is finally getting investigations and court appearances. Not to forget geoengineering, especially “chemtrails” which deposits 1000s of tons of toxic and neurologically damaging barium, aluminum, coal ash, etc which not only covers food crops but also infiltrates the water supply.

The goal and the agenda is depopulation through incremental genocide.

The next big threat is 5G. Learn about it. Fight it locally. It produces microwave radiation that slowly, but surely will fry your brain cells. The elites and their minions are sending many 1000s of satellites into space that will cover the US with 5G radiation. The majority of the poulation will be senile within 10 years.

Rick Hester 01/30/2019  •

Good program. Thanks as usual.
As for fewer bugs, fewer birds, trees dying……….I live in rural Georgia and have seen these things happening for several years. My personal explanation is chem-trails. I watch this cursed behavior happen in the skies over my home on an almost daily occurrence. I have read studies that claim the nano-particles of aluminum fall to the ground, leeching into the soil, coating the roots of trees which then have a difficult time absorbing moisture and eventually die. We are all inhaling this stuff. Perhaps the dying bugs and birds are the “canary in the coal mine”.
Your guest mentioned solar energy. I wish I could understand solar energy kits enough to feel confident in buying something. I worry that I will buy a pile of junk. Any suggestions would be helpful.

Paul in oz 01/30/2019  •

Another spot on interview … time may be limited to take advantage of Mr. Martenson’s advice … there appeared to be a technical breakout in silver at the end of November … the price then was 14.14 it is currently 16.03 and the 60 day moving average has yet to cross the 200 day moving average …usually a sign of secular bull … gold has had the moving average cross. All of the economic and geopolitical stars are aligning behind pm’s rising. Central bank intervention will likely be necessary and may be probable for these gains to be lost and or halted. It does seem as so many of the shows guest suggest, the central banks may struggle to keep it all together … stock up on necessities and if possible get some real money asap.

H. Craig Bradley 01/30/2019  •

THE GOOD OLD DAYS

Yada, Yada, Yada. We will do whatever it takes (Mario Dragi) to keep the global financial debt based system going for as long as possible. At the very end, we all go down in one big fireball. After that, the scavengers mill around for whatever they can find, reminiscing about the “Good Old Days”. For many, but not necessarily all, Life goes on regardless. After awhile nobody remembers what it was once like in the past. All that matters is survival in the present and no further thoughts or considerations. There is no long term, only short term. In fact, this may be where we already are for all I know.

Mary 01/30/2019  •

YOu are spot on. Here in Oklahoma TPTB are increasing the atmospheric spraying. Birds bees and insects are dwindling in numbers. Deformities in crops and birds such as I have never seen in 60+ years. Wake up people. It’s humans they are really trying to eliminate. We are a waste of resources in their demonic minds. We are at the top of the extermination list. Open your eyes people. Look at the skies. Go to Geoengineeringwatch.org. And pray.

Cristina R 01/31/2019  •

About the insects, I live in the country side in southwest Brazil and I’ve noticed a drastic reduction of all kinds of insects, something like 80-90%, in the last few months. After watching the interview I realized that was a real fact! That’s really scary because food production and bird population will certainly be affected next very soon and the consequences of all that won’t stop developing… If you believe in the Bible, the prophets and Revelation mention all that, about the time of trouble and the destruction that’s coming etc (Zephaniah 1:2-3). God bless you all!

Jerry 01/31/2019  •

I’m hearing that the 364 is being sent to Gitmo in March to watch high profile detainees.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2007/10/16/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E2156-1

Dale Kosted, D.V.M. 01/31/2019  •

Greg,
I thought it important to post this explanation addressing the term “natural born” in the Constitution.. There is nothing in the Constitution that was not carefully thought out and debated. If one has any questions concerning the Constitution, it is easy to clarify by reading the Federalist Papers and letters the founding fathers wrote to each other. The qualification of “natural born citizen” was placed there in order to guard against foreign interests affecting our country. To my knowledge, Obama was the first POTUS that was not “natural born”. There is no question that he a legal citizen of the US but he is NOT natural born as his dad was an alien. It is unfortunate that all the focus was placed on the whereabouts of his birth rather than the founding fathers interpretation of natural born. This is going to be very important in the upcoming 2020 election as Kamala Harris is also a citizen of the US but NOT natural born as both her parents were aliens at the time of her birth. The article below spells it out in explicit detail. It is a very important subject that needs to go to the Supreme Court to be clarified once again to an uninformed populace. I am sending this to my Oklahoma Senators and House Rep. I hope all USAW readers do the same.
Dale

The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”

A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,

Section 1 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.

1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” requires “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?

There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.

Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.

“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. ‘In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”

The Democrat’s have been pulling a fast one on the American people for decades now and are lying about Natural Born. Cruz & Rubio are not natural born and Jindal wasn’t either but he is out now. 
The Founder’s used Vattel’s book Law Of Nations when writing the Constitution and it states, ” natural born is …”a person born in a country of parents who are it’s citizens” Two parents not one! The Democrat’s have always ignored the real meaning of natural born. All the illegal’s babies who are born here are not natural born citizen’s if they never took the Naturalization Oath at 18 years of age they are not citizen’s period. The Democrat’s have always said the Supreme Court has never taken up the Natural Born question and so it’s what they say it is and that is false. In 1875 in a case before the SCOTUS Chief Justice Waite in the Opinion of the Court did say it was two parents to make a natural born citizen. The case file disappeared from the SCOTUS web site in the mid 1990’s but I have a copy of the part of the Opinion that dealt with natural born.
This case below and Vattel’s book Law of Nations is why the Democrat’s won’t try to take the Natural Born question to the Supreme Court. They know the court will use the Founder’s letters to each other and Vattel’s book and the Minor v. Happersett court opinion and the result would be two parents to give natural born status.
88 
U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: 
February 9, 1875
Decided: March 29, 1875
WAITE, 
C.J., Opinion of the Court 
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the 
court.
Looking 
at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167]friendship with each 
other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
Whoever, 
then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.The Constitution 
does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
You’ll notice it say’s, “born in a country of parents”, meaning born in this country and to two parent’s who are it’s citizens!
In letters to each other the Founder’s were most worried about someone with a foreign father because they believed the son always follows in the father’s political & religious belief’s. Obama has certainly proven the Flounder’s wisdom was right on!
Cruz & Rubio have Cuban father’s who were not citizens when they were born. In fact Cruz’s dad just became a citizen in 2005 because his son was running other wise he didn’t care about becoming an American citizen or he would have done so decades ago!
You should copy this and share it because too many people do not know the truth and the Democrat’s just love it that way