The Breakdown of Rights in America - The Dumbening

• Part 1: Basic Concepts
• Part 2: The Dumbening
• Part 3: The New Roman Empire
• Part 4: The Cultists of Molech (Part 1, Part 2)

We all know how the Union was formed to create a place of freedom, which there was a shortage of back in England. Today we're going to go into the aspects of this which you may not be aware of, such as why there wasn't freedom in England and what caused that, as well as just what the Union had built to ensure our freedoms. Ever since the Union was formed there have been forces which have attempted to erode it, and this is particularly so today. After over two hundred years of systematic attack, it's not in the shape it was designed to be in. Learn to recognize the difference, and then get involved to restore a government that recognizes the rights we're all supposed to have already.

You already know what sovereignty is, and you might imagine that there are forces out there in the world that would find a nation of completely free people, formalized into a political system, to be somewhat inconvenient. Of course! The idea might spread, and then where would your little empire be? This is just what happened, and evidently the only reason Britain stopped fighting against us in the War for Independence with troops was because they realized they could slowly make inroads by subverting our political system a bit at a time, if they were patient. It was certainly more cost-effective, and trying to quell an uprising in the Colonies wasn't something they could keep doing indefinitely. Eventually the ideas might spread back home, and everybody would be demanding their rights. So they settled on letting the Colonies believe they'd won, and then sabotaging what they'd established gradually over the next couple hundred years. The best way to overcome someone who happens to be right is to get them to stop them making their argument, which usually happens when you tell them they've already won.

The Founding Fathers of yesteryear would hardly recognize the Union of today.  They'd taken the basic structure of European common law as it'd been practiced and refined into basic truisms ("maxims") over centuries, and they imbued it with the concept of individual sovereignty.  They established a government that didn't believe it granted rights to its citizens, but instead kept to the doctrine that rights were self-evidently granted to citizens already by their Divine Maker.  The government's whole reason for being was to prevent those rights from being trespassed against by anyone.  When someone did encroach on your rights, the government's duty was to ensure that they were held accountable.  Otherwise, the government wasn't doing its' job.  Citizens owed nothing to their government, because their government was created to serve them and not the other way around.  This is why the officials were originally referred to as the "representatives" of the People, not their "leaders".  Politicians were there to represent your will, not tell you what it should be.  And everybody back then knew this.

What's happened since then is a process of sabotage that's been occurring for over two hundred years.  It's been happening systematically, by politicians and the national guild of attorneys working together.  More recently, they've gotten into the news media and since the 1930's, they've been going tycoon and establishing absurdly massive corporations.  Yeah, those guys.  I've been referring to the process as The Dumbening, where they gradually distort information and cause the public to forget or misremember how things should be, while also throwing in a bunch of new stuff that wasn't in our political system before for various "good reasons".  9/11 was a great instance of this, but they've been doing it systematically for centuries even over in Europe.  I call it The Dumbening because this system makes slaves of men by first making them fools, and I don't mean the frolicking court jesters from the days of yore.  I mean the mentally retarded simpletons those jesters were originally named after, who the public called fools so that everybody would know not to heed them.

The Dumbening has created a society of fools, in that most people don't know their rights and that's rendered them more and more harmless during the gradual takeover.  The way to overcome folly is by restoring the information that's been lost, because most people want to preserve the rights of most people, thank you, and it's only the minority who deliberately put out the misinformation.  When people collectively overcome their folly, spotting that tiny minority becomes a simple matter and the takeover becomes all but impossible.  When people actually know their rights, it's whoever is putting out the misinformation that's branded a fool.

Since we're on the subject, you may recall that court jesters back in feudal Europe were able to do anything, even to mock the King with impunity, to get a laugh.  This is because the sacred purpose, the healthy and proper purpose, of the fool was to get people to transcend their earthly state of being for a moment, and healthy laughter comes about by transcending disparities and paradoxes, and getting people to think about things in new ways.  For instance, there's no point in getting bogged down with the letter of the law when it completely defies the true intent behind it.  The sacred nature of the fool was created to bring people back to the benevolent intent behind something, no matter how complex the legal wording and process became.  But the benevolent nature of the fool was eventually downplayed, in favor of a political grab by the same groups back in feudal Europe that are currently sabotaging the Union today.  You'll recall that the authority of the King back then was diminished as the Catholic church established its own system of religious authority figures.  It started out seeming harmless enough, with the King as the political authority and the Church as the religious authority.  Problem was, the King had been considered to be Divinely-appointed until the Church gained traction, and once it had the People were more likely to obey a Church figure because they presumably had a higher authority than the King did.  Thus, the government of the day was constantly in conflict with a supposedly religious authority that was making constant efforts to subvert the political system.  As long as the Church managed to convince everyone that it had superior authority by their own version of The Dumbening, people would tend to listen to it.  And usually, the King didn't understand the situation well enough to correct the People on the matter, because kings typically knew how to manage political systems, not spiritual belief systems.  These are centuries-old propaganda techniques, with the Church as the overt power structure with a lot of symbolism tacked on, orchestrating covert groups of religious spies like the Jesuits by the use of those symbols.

How did they manage to keep the People of the time so thoroughly befuddled?  There were a few techniques that had been used over the centuries, and the first was to get people to misapply various types of thinking.  For instance, governments rely on something called public policy.  That is, for a healthy government to function it must have some basic and generalized tenets, that aren't prone to shifting.  They must remain constant, in order for a government to work.  A law that sometimes behaves this way, but sometimes behaves another, isn't very good practice.  This is because good law ought to be universal, and when it's shifty what you have instead is whimsy enforced by guns.  The more arbitrary the law is, the less justice you have and the more unstable a society becomes.  The law's job is to be more or less universal, applying to everyone without favoritism or cronyism.  But with religion, you have a slew of doctrines and individual personal beliefs.  People's understanding of their faith must grow to be healthy, and often that means re-evaluating today what you had accepted fully yesterday.  Reinterpretation is part of a healthy belief system, and what are my beliefs aren't necessarily your beliefs.  So as it moved into a political venue, one of the ways the Church found to eat into political systems was to cause People to misapply ecclesiastical law in the context of public policy.  It was easy to convince them to do this, because Divine law outranks earthly political law, right?  The logical fallacy goes something like this: "Bleach is superior to soap for cleaning things.  I want to be clean.  Therefore, I'll wash with bleach."  Can you imagine?  And if you disagreed that Ecclesiastical Law outranked earthly political law, or your reasoning could even be misconstrued that way, it was even easier: The majority of God-fearing people would brand you a fool until they could label you a heretic and get an Inquisition going.  As long as the Church could keep people stymied as to actual valid spiritual concepts by not doing its job of enlightening people, it had a society of people ready to live and die for a pretty absurd form of spiritual fascism.  People with half-truths are generally more dangerous than people with no truths at all, and the Church has thrived for centuries by sabotaging the People with calculated and persuasive half-baked ideas.  (Following it up with Inquisitions, which give you fully-baked people.)

This was the original purpose behind the separation between Church and State in the First Amendment. After centuries of the back-and-forth in Europe between the Catholic Church and the political systems, the Founders of the Union wanted to ensure that malleable religious thinking didn't again make its way into our structure of governance. It wasn't that they believed religion had no place in governance; after all, they wrote that "we hold these truths to be self-evident; that Men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". They believed that our rights came about because of a Creator, and that it was the effort of political systems to ensure that People retained them. What they didn't want was shifty beliefs stopping up the political system, because that would diminish the rights of the People and be specifically against the Will of the Creator. Never mind that this is precisely what the Church had been striving to do for centuries, and would continue to do whenever possible. Small wonder then, that most people now believe the First Amendment was designed to keep the government from interfering with religious groups, and that the basic concept behind it has been all but lost to the public.

A senior Bush aide once ridiculed a New York Times reporter over his adherence to "the reality-based community", which he described as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality". "That's not the way the world really works any more. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other, new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

"I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

— Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, aka "Curveball," admitting to WMD lies used to justify the Iraq War

This quote by one of Bush's senior aides references a meme prevalently used by those sabotaging the world: that of creating new, false realities for people.  Anyone who's seen Inception has encountered this meme.  One interpretation of Inception, easily drawn, is as a thinly-veiled effort to co-ordinate people in the political and scientific elite, because what the Church once did with politics it's starting to do to our understanding of the sciences.  In order to get a research paper published, it must be considered credible by the mainstream scientific community.  But when you have a community that's comprised of a few well-educated people, it becomes fairly prone to manipulation so long as you can make sure the people in positions of influence are willing sell-outs.  We're familiar with corrupt governments where the major positions are occupied by corrupt officials, but we're not really used to thinking of the scientific elite as being open to the same phenomenon.  We should be; with the global wealth being increasingly consolidated bribery gets much easier to achieve, and with journalism getting more consolidated as well it's an easy matter to have the media echo your reasoning in order to craft the dominant paradigm and make it stick publicly.  When you have an elite that's corruptible, getting the public to accept whatever agenda you have becomes much easier to accomplish because they'll have to trust you.  They just don't know any better.  It's a centuries-old con, with the Pope out there in medieval Europe playing three-card monte first in the streets, then in lavish cathedrals, then in politics, and now they're moving into the media and the sciences.  Give it another couple of centuries, and we'll be believing the earth is flat again.  And we'll only be able to wonder in awe at supreme earthly authorities passing overhead in flying saucers, taking on all the status of godlike figures with access to a technology we'll have developed ourselves, but forgotten all about.

This music video uses a corporate metaphor to pretty accurately parallel what these guys do to political systems.

In order for ecclesiastic law to be used in a political system, there must be contracts. This is because my spiritual beliefs and yours may differ, and so we couldn't ordinarily use them as the basis for a government. But if by some chance we shared the same beliefs, we could establish a private contract and use our shared beliefs as the basis for our interactions. It would be outside the Constitution, but that would be okay because since we're sovereign, we have the ability to establish pretty much whatever contracts we'd like with each other. It's part of our freedom to do, and our government doesn't have the authority to limit that. In fact, contracts like this in private law are essentially the only way we could use our spiritual beliefs as the basis of our interaction within the world. We couldn't make private law the public policy, because you wouldn't want to mess up a stable political system with subjectively-held beliefs. Tampering with a stable political system by introducing various inconstant, bendy notions into it would essentially be treason. You'd be trying to crash the government like a computer.

Which is just what they've been doing.  The Fourteenth Amendment is believed by most to have abolished slavery.  The wording has been carefully designed to instill that notion in people, but what it actually did was create a sort of alternative form of citizenship where people could become subjects of the government, rather than being sovereigns over it.  The Fourteenth Amendment created a new category of citizenship called "persons" (rather than We, the People), and enacted a sort of contract with the government that you could opt into contractually through a bastardized form of private law, that would be opt-in voluntary servitude.  Ostensibly, this was perfectly within your right to contract beyond the realm of the Constitution in private law.  A form of privileges granted by the government were developed, and called civil rights.  They appear to closely resemble your actual rights, but since they're federally-granted privileges you're considered to be accepting special privileges and considerations from the government when you use them.  Or more often, when you demand them.  This hearkens back to Roman municipal civil law, which had been developed and used in the Roman empire in order to create a militarily-run slave State.  In Roman municipal civil law, you have several differences.  When you're in court, you are considered guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and you'd be surprised how seldom people manage that.  Sound familiar to what goes on in courtrooms all over the country today?  You're also considered to have no rights but what the government chooses to give you, because since you're a slave you're considered to be subordinate to your government, rather than its master.  This is also familiar to most Americans today.

There's another major difference in Roman municipal civil law, and it's a form of contract that's called an adhesion contract.  Normally in a contract, the piece of paper is the record of the contract, not the contract itself.  If you and I were to establish a contract it would be on certain terms, and we'd naturally want a record of those terms in order to refer back to later on, in case there was any dispute.  The contract itself would be our agreement.  The piece of paper we'd signed would simply be the record of it.  This is still true, in the Union.  But in Roman municipal civil law, you can unknowingly become a party to a contract simply by accepting goods and services, benefits or considerations from someone.  You wouldn't know that you even had a contract, until that someone came along and told you.  At that point, you could be compelled by the terms of their contract with you to do things that you'd had no intention of doing, such as becoming their slave for twenty years.  This was an important aspect of law for the slave-run Roman Empire, but in order to do it they had to essentially mangle their system of law.  Specifically, they had to throw out what a contract actually was, which is an agreement between two or more parties.  And they had to turn it into something that it wasn't.  Today, when you receive benefits and privileges, goods or services from the government you're considered to be accepting the terms of an adhesion contract or compelled performance contract.  Thus, when you accept tax breaks for marriage, or apply for a license for the privilege to drive, you're requesting considerations from the government to do something you wouldn't otherwise be able to do.  Remember how they tell you that driving is a privilege, not a right?  They mean just that.  Mind you, you only need a license as permission from your government to do what would otherwise be against the law, and the right to travel is not only a basic human right, it's also implied in your unalienable Constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  Pretty difficult to pursue happiness if you can't move around, yes?  They had to introduce "driving" as being a commercial activity (like a taxi driver, pizza delivery guy, or FTD florist) in order to license using your own car in the first place.  It's technically within the federal government's limited set of authorities, because we told it to regulate interstate commerce.  That's why they created Interstate Highways, and why the front-right seat in a car is called the "passenger's seat".  Because you're either delivering cargo or a passenger.  It's just one more public fraud to add to the heap, and people couldn't do anything to put a stop to the fraud until they knew about it.  Now, today, you know too.  And when enough people know, we can do something about it.

Nevertheless, courts and government today continue to insist on the validity of Roman municipal civil law contracts in place of the actual common law.  Never mind that it's treasonously un-American, and never mind that the Roman concept itself was a distortion of private law to begin with.  They still do it, and call it law.  This is because it's only the latest in a long tradition of spurious legal pretexts used to make inroads on whole societies, first using whatever justifications they can produce to get the majority to accept it, and later bashing it all into place by revising the system of laws wholesale.  Eventually, they can bring the military into the middle of it all and compel performance at gunpoint.  Spiritually-coordinated fascism at its finest.  The Inquisition didn't happen overnight.  It couldn't have ever happened unless it somehow managed to get traction with the majority of the People first.  So they probably didn't start with burning people at the stake and getting confessions under torture.  No, they started quietly.  In the Churches, with Bibles and sermons and pastors with all-knowing demeanors.  They needed to convince people that they knew better, and that they'd make great leaders for "the faithful".  Because once you've convinced someone you're right to the point that they refuse to question it, you're free to break out the torture equipment.

By the way, this Roman municipal civil law stuff is the "empire" that the senior Bush aide I quoted was talking about.  It's the Roman Empire.  They quite familair with what they're doing, and you should know too.  When enough people understand what's going on we'll be able to take 'em down with law, and we'll find out how well they're able to keep "creating new realities" for people.

So if this covert agency out of Rome was going through the Union from the time it was established, influencing our government, you'd expect to find some evidence of it right? Even symbolic evidence, used in the newspapers and culture of the time to coordinate the effort. Found it!

www.goddesscolumbia.com... - Almost from the moment the New World was discovered, it was seen in mythological terms as an exotic goddess, an Indian Queen dressed in feathers and furs riding an exotic beast like an armadillo and armed with a tomahawk.

The Catholic south adapted the idea of the Goddess of the New World into the ever-expanding hagiology of the Catholic Church. The Virgin of Guadalupe allowed the archetype to become personal, a connection to the land and its ancestors, while joining a larger universalist vision inside the Church. In the largely Protestant north, things went quite differently.

The 17th century’s Indian Goddess became a tamer Indian Princess, modelled on the archetypal story of Pocahontas. ... As the 18th century passed, and America grew more developed and its people more educated, the Indian princess gained a touch of Greek elegance. "By the late 1790s," folk-art historian Nancy Jo Fox comments, "it was not clear whether a feathered Indian Princess had changed into a Greek goddess or whether a Greek goddess had placed feathers or plumes in her hair."

So we have an exotic Indian goddess coming onto the scene right about the time North America was discovered, where she would symbolize the new country.  Synonymous with the Virgin Mary, Columbia also parallels Aestoreth and Ishtar, who in turn are later representations of Kali, the consort of Shiva.  Kali is the Mother Goddess, and the bloodthirsty Goddess of War and Destruction.

Washington D.C. is also referred to as the District of Columbia and was formed out of parcels of land from Virginia and Maryland.  Within decades of signing the Declaration of Independence and establishing the Union, our Indian Princess had radically transformed into a Greek goddess, keeping only the feathers in her hair.  Feathers are textbook symbolism for, once again, the fool archetype.  The newly-founded Union was already being transformed into a nation of fools.

The root of "Columb" means "white dove", or "dove", and the gradual transformation of Columbia, the archetype, parallels the gradual transformation of Columbia, the District, from innocent and peaceful to its modern bloodthirsty pursuit of war and destruction.

They're currently rushing to commence martial law in the Union. Knowing the Kali symbolism as you do now, you'll be able to notice that recently they've started to release more symbolism related to her. Specifically, using "one foot raised" to refer to her. I think it was used once during the State of the Union address for 2011 (which is chock full of Columbia's misery symbolism by the way; I'll post the time on this bit when I find it again) and then from Penny Arcade a few days later.

The State of the Union makes a lot more sense if you know that he's invoking Nike, god of competition and victory, Thor god of lightning from the heavens (using "power", "spark", "step" and other "thump" symbolism) and Molech, used for organizing the worsening state of the world. (Noise, cars due to their internal combustion engines, containers in general, and sacrifices are invocations of his symbolism.)

Get ready, because they're bringing their own system down sooner rather than later.

We know from the political corruption inherent in our system today that the inroads were being made to the system of governance by way of politicians and by attorneys. So we know where the corruption was spreading (through the government of the Union), and now we know just about when it started (even as the Colonies were being settled).

"Your friends, the Jesuits, have not yet killed me.  But they would have surely done it, when I passed through their most devoted city, Baltimore, had I not defeated their plans, by passing incognito, a few hours before they expected me.  We have proof that the company which had been selected and organized to murder me, was led by a rabid Roman Catholic, called Byrne; it was almost entirely composed of Roman Catholics ... A few days ago, I saw Mr. [Samuel F. B.] Morse, the learned inventor of electric telegraphy; he told me that, when he was in Rome ... he found out the proofs of a formidable conspiracy against this country and all its institutions.  It is evident that it is to the intrigues and emissaries of the pope, that we owe, in great part, the horrible civil war which is threatening to cover the country with blood and ruins."

"I know that Jesuits never forgive nor forsake.  But man must not care how or where he dies, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty."

- Abraham Lincoln

So it's clear that the War for Independence was going on covertly though the underground of the Colonies before it ever came to military force, and even today long after the War proper we're still encountering the same political corruption via The Dumbening. This means that the War for Independence never actually ended; they just quit sending over the British naval fleets, and started using other methods. In other words, the War for Independence is still going on today. What they couldn't or wouldn't do through decisive military force, they did through over two centuries of stealth, guile, and political corruption. Perhaps it's because a swift military effort would only have changed the political regime, but not the minds of the People. In order for the reacquisition to become effective, in order that the matter of Independence not come up again, the culture and mindset of the People needed to be gradually and systematically eroded. And that's something that takes a little more than guns.

Interestingly, from a spiritual perspective a transformation represents a deviation from, or a distortion of, someone's true nature.  For instance, Columbia went from peace and virtue to war and destruction.  The citizenry of nations throughout the centuries went from virtuous and purposeful to corrupt and foolhardy, with the Church symbolically even calling them fools.  But it's nobody's true nature to be a fool, or to be devoted to war and destruction.  Transformations like that always represent a stretch away from anyone's true nature, and like any stretch it can only go so far, or go on for so long.  Eventually, people will have to snap back to their truer nature, because it's quite uncomfortable to be reshaped into something that goes against everything you are.  Society has been crammed into a mold that doesn't fit it, and which is too small to contain it.  All that's left is to restore it to its' truer state, and that necessarily means that the godawful transformations we're talking about can only ever be, from a spiritual perspective at least, false and illusory.  They actually take place in the world yes, but they're not indicative of anything we actually are.  Perhaps that's why with Columbia, and with all the other versions of symbolism I've encountered for the same kind of thing, they're always typified by destruction, pain, woe, torment, and various forms of misery.  Because deviating away from your True Nature is always just a recipe for a wretched state.

Here is the "Great Seal Of The State Of California".  The nice lady in military garb is the Roman goddess Minerva, goddess of War.  I'm not sure what she's doing on an emblem for California, but obviously she's a long way from home.  She's seated on a rock, which represents the church or system of private law (that is, subjectively-held beliefs) of the woman, which represents emotion or changing conscience rather than absolute, unchanging law.  Over her head is the word "Eureka", which history tells us originated with Archimedes, the Greek mathematician and physicist.  "Eureka" means "I have found it", and was said by Archimedes when he discovered a method of detecting the amount of alloy mixed in with the gold in the crown of the king of Syracuse.  Gold as you'll recall is classically equated with value, Divinity, and if you're into alchemy, with a self-actualized state of being.  What happens when you dilute those things, particularly with shifting values and standards, makes perfect sense in the context we're talking about here.  Behind the nice lady with the spear is a whole lot of water, which represents a few things.  For one, water is a shifting, inconstant substance that typically flows downhill.  If you're a group that uses "up" to represent the true state of affairs in alignment with Divine Will, then "down" would be its' opposite.  In law, water represents admiralty jurisdiction, away from the laws of any specific country.  In admiralty jurisdiction, the will of the captain of the ship you're on is law and you have no other earthly recourse while you remain on his ship.  In older law, where ownership of the land was a prerequisite for personal sovereignty, water would also be a good way to represent the absence of that sovereignty.  Interestingly, Archimedes is also known for having invented the Archimedean screw or "water snail", which moved water uphill when rotated.  Symbolically then, you'd then have a depiction a concerted effort to get shifting, inconstant private law regarded as the True State of being, by moving it "up".  As if that weren't enough you have a miner and his sluice box, raiding the land for its valuables and removing them from the earth - diminishing the value of the land and, symbolically, the sovereignty of the People.  In the foreground there's some grain, symbolizing control of the land and its substance.  Notably, present also is the bear, representing the fact that the Republic is still there - the California Republic is called the "Bear Republic".  It's superimposed over Minerva's shield though, indicating a guise or false front.  This is the case in court today; while the Republic and its common law are still technically accessible, you're hard-pressed to find a judge who will still acknowledge that.  In other words, while the basic structure of valid law remains, waiting only for the People to take it back, it presently is retained in the system only as a form of C.Y.A. for the officials involved and used as a precaution against charges of treason should they occur.

It's also been left in there because when you have a systematic effort to erode the law, it still relies upon people in order to do it. Those people may have, at the start, been convinced that they're doing what they're doing for any number of reasons, and many convincing arguments can be made so long as you don't yet remove the valid structure entirely. It's staggering what you can manage to convince people of, particularly when you're a Church that's been in the business for centuries. But once you remove the valid structure completely, a lot of those people once willing will refuse to stand for it. The jig, as they say, is up.

So the idea is to let the greatest number of insiders believe whatever they'd like in order to retain their complicity, while at the same time putting into place a corrupt and invalid system that will be strong enough to withstand the eventual outcry from the People. So it's no coincidence that the Roman goddess they'd selected was the goddess of war, nor that the United States has been increasing its own military strength for decades. Those behind this know that they will eventually have to use it to quell their own People, when it becomes obvious that they've been engaging in a secret war against them for centuries. The federal defense budget is up to about fifty percent now, by the way.

I wonder how long we're going to keep subsidizing our own enslavement.

Thanks for reading more about the Breakdown of Rights in America.  For those who are interested, my source material is available here and here.  Relevant listening can be found here.

Later on in this series, we'll get into how we can put a stop to all this. So many fringe commentators will depress you all day long about how awful everything's gotten, when what most people are really seeking is some means of taking action and correcting the problem. In order to put things right, we'll need to have a better collective understanding of what was actually done - and how it was done - to know how to spot it and keep it from happening again. Then we'll check out some of the options people still have available to take action, both individually and collectively, to restore our rights and the Republic as it should always have been for us. There's a ton of research available, and the internet can allow people to combine their efforts like never before. It took a bit to find out about the widespread public deceits, but we'll have the means collectively to put a stop to all this and get rid of the problem once and for all.

Please join me for the next Hub in this ongoing series:

The Breakdown of Rights in America - The New Roman Empire.

Touching Heaven: My Experience with Physical Transcendence

The House That Couldn't Stand - Why the Masons are going under

Five Things Your Attorney Won't Tell You

Why is the U.S. Military Camped Out In Our Newsrooms?