All Posts (28081)

Sort by

4063574728?profile=original

Former President Bill Clinton returned to bask in the national spotlight, giving the Democratic National Convention nomination speech for the current White House occupant.

Not surprising for a speech coming from someone impeached for perjury by Congress, the speech, while delivered with Slick Willie’s signature “I feel your pain” polish, was riddled with falsehoods.

While it would be instructive to do a point by point rebuttal to Clinton’s lie filled rambling, few people have the time to invest in listening to one of Slick Willie’s exercises in verbosity, much less reading a rebuttal of the entire rendering.  Hence only selected portions are to be found herein.

The lies began with: “We think ‘we're all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘you're on your own.’”

That statement is a straw man argument, pure and simple.

Conservative Americans point to America’s long history of family, community, church and private charities, not government, successfully tending to the needs described in the phrase “we’re all in this together”.  Only those with the “progressive” collectivist mindset believe relying on the private sector for solutions equates to “you’re on your own.”

Clinton then stooped to a not so subliminal ad hominem attack on Conservative Americans: “It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.”

In one sentence, he elevates “progressives” to the “morally right” position while lowering Conservative Americans to the level of being ignorant, discriminatory, and in favor of poverty.  Not only is this smear factually unsubstantiated, it is carefully phrased to tug at the heartstrings of “progressive” followers. 

What the sentence also misrepresents is that in reality, more Washington spending on education has only reaped diminished results.  Infrastructure spending has created precious few jobs.  Scientific and technological research has been far most productive and successful when done in the private sector economy.  Just ask Silicon Valley, where private capital and the private sector free market, not government, created new wealth.

He then attacked Congressional Republicans with: “When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.”

The “faction that now dominates the Republican Party” does not view government as the enemy.  They view government that promotes government dependency by being too large, too expansive, too expensive, too controlling, too overreaching and too intrusive into the private lives of free American Citizens as the enemy.  They do not see compromise as weakness.  What they understand is that “progressives” are incapable of and uninterested in compromise.  The “faction that now dominates the Republican Party” understands that bargaining with those whose negotiating position begins and ends with “what’s mine is mine and what’s your is ours” is a fool’s errand.

Clinton then returns to a “progressive” staple, the straw man: “In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

This attack employs the long term “progressive” strategy of repeating the lie that Republican policies created the economic crisis of 2008.

The Glass-Steagall Act had stringently separated commercial banking from investment banking.  Its repeal contributed to the 2008 credit crisis by allowing mortgage back securities to be traded in the investment commodities market.  The “progressive” left loves to blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall on Republicans.   Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law that repealed Glass-Steagall, passed in the Senate by a vote of 90-8.  Thirty eight Democrats, including Joe Biden, voted for the final bill.  Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

Clinton actively favored reductions in housing market standards by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  He can also be blamed for encouraging bad loans to be made and promoting regulations that incentivized banks to make risky loans to unqualified home buyers through expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The facts show that the 2008 economic crisis was a product of “progressive” social engineering in the American housing market.  The constant repetition by “progressive” politicians that it was caused by failed Republican policies is a flat out lie.

Being able to lie convincingly has always been Bill Clinton’s special gift.  He was in typical Clintonesque Academy Award winning form during his DNC speech.

The story continues: “The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.”

The pork filled stimulus bill “saved jobs” in fiscally irresponsible states and communities that without a taxpayer funded bailout could no longer sustain the costs of government sector union pensions, benefits and other wasteful government spending.  It did not create private sector jobs.  Of the alleged “4.5 million private sector jobs” that have been created “in the last 29 months”, most are low paying jobs.  The Survey of Consumer Finances found that median wealth for American families has plunged by 39 percent.  Those same families have experienced an average median loss of $4,000 in income.

The Republicans who “blocked the President's jobs plan”,  a plan that failed in the Senate by a vote of 50 to 49, included Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, who also did not support the measure.  The facts show that it was the loss of those two Democratic votes that doomed the plan.

Those tax cuts “for 95 percent of the American people” were cuts in the payroll tax, which funds Social Security.  For purely partisan political gain, those cuts created the illusion that workers were getting a real tax cut while defunding the Social Security trust fund depended upon by retiring Baby Boomers.

Clinton saved his most egregious lies for Medicare: “Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.”

The truth is, obama”care”, a gigantic tax increase on all Americans, that for partisan political reasons remains hidden from voters by the institutionalized “progressive” left, robs $716 billion from Medicare to help pay for obama”care”.  This was necessary because despite all the hidden taxes, “progressives” could not successfully manipulate the numbers to make it appear cost neutral without stealing from Medicare.  The “progressives” then double count that money by saying it is also going to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program.  Paul Ryan’s plan takes that $716 and puts it in a trust fund that actually will extend the life of Medicare.

Clinton attacks the GOP candidates on a multitude of topics, but the most unbelievable assertion he made in his entire speech is that the current Chief Executive “is still committed to cooperation.”  Barrack Obama has never been committed to cooperation.

On his third day in office, when challenged by a Republican Senator about his plans, replied: “I won.”  He, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid then isolated Republicans from the legislative process by holding their meetings behind closed doors.

Why was it possible for Clinton to stand on the DNC stage and lie about the Republican Congress doing nothing?  Because Harry Reid continues the lock out process, preventing a plethora of jobs and economic recovery bills passed by the Republican House from even being debated, much less voted on in the “progressive” Democrat controlled Senate.

If Americans believe in an all-powerful, manipulative, micro-managing, centrally planned big government run by liars, whose negotiating stance is “what’s mine is mine and what’s your is ours” they will vote to re-elect “progressives”.  In that case, they will be co-signing America’s death sentence.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/bubba-clinton-is-still-the-slickest-liar-progressives-have/

Read more…

Quit Trying to "Label" Me!

I guess I need to clear up a misconception. Every one I get ripped by thinks I am a shill for the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. NOT!  I am not a Democrat nor am I a Republican. In truth, I am a dues paying member of the Constitution Party. Neither mainstream party represents my views on the role of government in our lives. As for being extreme right wing, since when is supporting the Constitution as written extreme?  I am an originalist as I have said before. The Constitution is not a living document. The founders wrote the instrument to state their beliefs exactly as intended. There was no ambiguity or misunderstanding as to what it said or meant. Only in more modern times have we streched the vocabulary of the text to the proverbial point of breakage. I read the words and understand them to mean exactly as they would have been understood in 1785. It is when we start to interpret these documents by today's lexicon that we get into trouble. Never, by any stretch of the imagination, would the founders have recognized the federal government as it is today; nor would they have supported it's actions. To them (and myself) our current government would seem an abomination and a Frankensteins Monster of bits and pieces of the govenment they bequeathed to us. We, not they, are the ones who have made the mess. It is we who will have to clean it up. I have also been mildly accused of formenting rebellion. Not so. I support revolution not rebellion. There is a difference. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized that a little revolution is good for governments. It keeps them from believing their own rhetoric and visions of divine granduer. Even while authoring the Declaration of Independence, he never advocated rebellion. Instead, he made the case for revolution. Revolution is the logical and legal response of an oppressed people. Rebellion is the response of a lawless mob. Granted, the distinction is fine, but it is there none the less.

Read more…

Agenda 21 Declares War On Mankind

Jurriaan Maessen

Infowars

In the last couple of years the omnipresent force known as Agenda 21 is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide. With the rise of the alternative media, the flow of decade-long propaganda efforts is finally being hindered. As a result of rocks thrown in the stream- the once steady water flow is now exposing itself at every turn as it’s forced to bend and twist its way forward. Ironically, the UN and its affiliate accomplices have themselves to thank for the counter-effort. The internet- as well as some pretty thorough archiving on the part of these transnational bureaucracies- have allowed researchers to withdraw information directly from the lion’s den. As a result of this development, we can display a plethora of documents, often written by UN personnel and ideologues, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a concerted strategy in place to brainwash (there’s no other name for it) the human population of the planet into accepting Agenda 21 and its inherent depopulation proposals. Furthermore, this pool of document has revealed a plan to de-industrialize the west and to use the “green agenda” to do so. In the last few decades Agenda 21 has been UN policy, and all of its subdivisions were commanded to fall in line.

Throwing rocks however, is not enough to stall the multi-winged creature that is Agenda 21. What do free people do when confronted with tyranny designed to target people in their local communities? Methinks nothing short of a war declaration is in order to push back the effort. As is custom when declaring war, there first needs to be a listing of the arguments for the war declared.

Exhibit A: De-Industrializing the West

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by Professor Jeffrey Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda 21. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”

In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world.”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”

Dimension 4: “Spatial Sustainability”:

“directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (…)”.

The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is “Cultural Sustainability”: “looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”

But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:

“Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.

This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”

Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:

“However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”

Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”

Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?

“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.”

Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:

“Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”

Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:

“In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system.”

This almost literally echoes the recent call by a group of scientists for the upcoming UN Earth Summit to create “a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.”

The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the “Danish Text”, drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.

The other, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of course the concerted effort on the part of the global elite, through multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of the world but to cull them.

Exhibit B: Using the Mass-Media To Cull the Overall Human Population

The 1973 document Mass Media, Family Planning and Development: Country Case Studies on Media Strategy is a good example of how the UN utilizes mass media to propogandize people into cutting their numbers. In this particular document we learn something about the strategies to be implemented in the eugenics-based family planning project of the future. Based on case studies in third world countries, the document proposes the creation of a “family planning communication resource unit” for every nation concerned. The reason being, so the report states, that “culturally, there is an emphasis on fertility, and the birth of children to the family is celebrated, as a symbol of prosperity and for status for women.” Because UNESCO-chieftains can’t have that, the reduction of a population should be accomplished through an elaborate media campaign, utilizing all possible avenues. Ancient tribal instincts, revolving around procreation and creativity, become suspect- as does religion and tribal mythology. The following strategies dates back from the early 1970s- but have now been formalized worldwide by Agenda 21 as enshrined within its dark articles.

The writers of the 1973 document mean not to destroy the human tendencies, they mean to use them to their own advantage and that of their masters. “The religion”, they say, “supports the idea that children are ‘God’s Greatest Blessing’ but can also be used to encourage the idea that every child should be given the best opportunities parents can offer. There is also a favourable attitude to economic development, a desire to raise living standards, and a desire for education. These factors are helpful in the development of a Preliminary Media Strategy.”

“A Communication Resource Unit”, the document continues, “is responsible for the implementation of media policy for one, or more than one field.” The document proceeds with outlining the functions of such a unit in regards to family planning messages: “The integration of messages is a matter which concerns the Communication Resource Unit, in that an integrated approach to family planning needs to be worked out. (…) These (messages) may be ‘family planning for maternal health’, ‘family planning for family prosperity’, ‘family planning for your figure’, ‘family planning for national prosperity’, family planning for child development.’ These messages will be pretested to find those which seem to appeal most to the eligible age groups.”

One of the many case studies (country case study nr.1) involves an unnamed “small island”, total population 3,000,000. Describing the current situation, the report states: “Mass media approaches to family planning are wholly financed by the Government and, since 1968, radio, television and the press have been used to give information about family planning and to create an awareness of the need for population control.” One of the chief objectives for the ‘resource unit’, will be to “extend(ing) the family planning coverage to 90% of the eligible population. The aim at this point is to bring the number of children per family nearer to three rather than four, and to gradually reduce this to two children per family at a later stage.”

As one of the first proposed “phases” of the programme, the document describes several messages to be embedded within television commercials. “A couple are shown over one of the new Government flats. They are unable to take it, because the accommodation provided is for families with two or three children. Preference is given to smaller families. They (the large family) will have to wait longer.” Another example: “The picture shows a married woman with one child. She is stopped by a voice saying “Do you know about family planning?” “Your local clinic has all the information.”” Or: “(Picture changes to a smiling woman with clinic appearing) “Family planning is free in all clinics (…)””. How about this one: “Don’t put off family planning. Tomorrow may be too late. See your clinic today.” You gotta also love this one: “A picture on the screen could show a woman talking to a consultant about family planning. She turns to the viewers and says: “I’m glad I made up my mind about family planning.””

Cartoons, say the authors, could also help implant a family planning message, for example “a cartoon in the most widely read newspaper could take the opportunity to ridicule those who cling to the old ways to the detriment of their families.”

Both television and radio advertisements are subject to the strategies of the Communication Resource Unit: “Advertising on television will be in the evenings, between popular programmes, when a broader audience (both male and female) is expected.” With regards to radio advertising, the report says: “The commercials can be played into record request programmes, women’s programmes, at programme junctions, before and after news breaks, popular serials and plays. The message should be simple, sympathetic, catchy.”

“For example”, the report continues, “messages like these can appeal specifically to the over thirty age group: “Family planning is for YOU. Have you had two children or more? The now’s the time to visit your local clinic.” And: “Most people plan their families. They know that education, clothing, housing, all cost money. How many children can you afford?” In another instance, people are being scared with all kinds of gruesome images: “For example, the commercial might begin with the hungry cries of four or five children, followed by the tired voice of the mother.” The examples in the document go on and on, crudely distributing messages into the mass media: “A sequence might be set up, (…) showing John and Mary with two children. The caption reads: “John and Mary…. nice house ……lovely children”, and another (showing another couple with four children), “Doris and Jack….. no house ….. too many children.”

“Personality shows”, the report mentions, “can be useful in the reinforcement phase. (…) A well known personality who demonstrates an interest in family planning, or remarks on the success of the campaign, can often add credibility to the family planning message.” The report would like to see these personalities follow the script word for word, for example in response to a woman, who recently gave birth to her first child: “Well, that’s marvellous”, the radio personality should respond, “Congratulations Mrs……… I suppose you won’t be having any more children for a bit. You want that boy of yours to grow healthy and strong and I know you need time to recover- Children take up a lot of your time, don’t they?” The document states that personality alone cannot fully carry the message through to the listening audience: “Jingles and spot announcements, jokes and quick comments, can be included in the programmes, which will then have the effect of keeping the subject of family planning firmly in mind.”

How would the UNESCO-people arrange all this? Just by voluntary compliance of the media-people involved?

“There may be some scheme whereby those people will be paid for their work (…)”- says the document. In other words: bribery is being proposed as an acceptable means of bringing the media into the strategy.

Also community plays should be used to convey the message: “The afternoon play can carry the theme, skillfully woven into the story. It is possible that some plays could be specially written for the purpose, but it is probable that the message can be incorporated into plays by those writers who have been briefed well enough in advance.” Music and pamphlets are another way of doing it, the report says: “Songs can be useful in this phase, (…). They must be professionally composed and recorded, and the messages must be reasonably subtle if it is to be acceptable to programmers.”

But the proposed Resource Unit won’t restrict itself to just radio, TV and plays. Feature films are considered perhaps to be the most effective tools in conveying the message to unsuspecting audiences: “(…) There are two ways in which the family planning message can be included in feature films. The first is for the family organisation to commission a film specifically for the campaign. (…) if it is to be successful, well known and popular actors must be chosen, and the scripting and direction has to be professionally executed. Another method is for the family planning theme to be introduced into feature films which are already planned and prepared by local commercial production companies. In this case, the family planning organisers must be aware of the possible ways in which the theme can be subtly incorporated, as producers are not likely to respond to a suggestion which involves the total re-thinking of the plot. (…) Suitable opportunities can be found in love stories, in stories based on conflicts between men and women (…).”

 


And the document- thoroughly immersed in deception- continues on, listing example after example- and illustrating quite vividly the willingness on the part of the Malthusian-minded elite to lie, cheat and deceive in order to convince people that “less is more”. In the 1970s, air pollution and global cooling were thrown into the equation- later on it became anthropogenic global warming. As this document shows, nation after nation is methodically bombarded with predictive programming-propaganda, requiring of the receiver an almost superhuman set of defence mechanisms to fence off the pitchforks of the eugenicists, poking at them from all sides.

Exhibit C: Declaring Man The Enemy of the Earth

As we know, the globalists have decided long ago that the environmental debate is no longer a debate- it has been decreed that the “discussion is over” and everyone should better realize that man is the prime cause for global warming on the planet earth, or of any other natural calamity. As long as it serves the double purpose of the elite: to abolish nation-states in favor of a great global government, and- as Jeffrey Sachs’ 1991 document reveals- reduce the world population in the same breath. The imagined threat of “international terrorism” hardly being sufficient to justify the drastic measures being implemented, another common enemy has presented itself, and what better enemy than the one staring back at you in the mirror.

As numerous meteorologists and climatologists have testified to in recent years, their participation in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been used to back a theory that they themselves did not support. And then there are the thousands of meteorologists of good name and standard, who out of scientific righteousness have stepped forward and presented their facts before the public and scientific community. But it is of no concern to the global elite. They have for a good long time, spanning the last couple of centuries at least, presided over the politics of eugenics and enforced its diabolical mechanisms with energy, cunning and precision. It is not an idle use of words, when we identify eugenicists as such, for however just and noble its cloaking makes them out to be, this supposed righteousness is merely a grotesque carnival-costume intended to shade its true countenance.

For an October 1975 ‘International Workshop on Environmental Education’, UN-representative Lars Emmelin writes: “The adult education effort seems to me most critical. First, because this element- now outside the formal channels of education- will continue to be the decision makers for the next 15 to 20 years, and it is within this period that the most critical and disruptive decisions will have to be made. We cannot afford to focus on youth and let the elders die off before changing our course, which, if time permitted, would be the most efficient way of institutions change.”

In choosing its course for mass-indoctrination, the 1975 workshop explores various ways in which the mass media can be used to “sensitize” the general public in accepting the UN’s long-term ambitions. Under the headline ‘The Media as Environmental Educators’ (page 4) several options are being presented by one of the participants in how the media can best be used:

“Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effective kinds of environmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions for environmental action; early warnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame for environmental degradation.”’, the report states.

During an ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, “paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to the spectacular results achieved since the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social and cultural life, particularly in education and science, and, more especially, in environmental education.”

You’re reading it right. Here the good Director-General is paying tribute to a then 60-year old regime responsible for murdering many millions of its own people in death camps and deliberate mass-scale starvation-operations. Yes, “environmental issues” were very high on the agenda of the USSR, very high indeed.

After having taken his hat off to his fellow-psychopath, the Director-General plunged into a long and melodious speech on the importance of the “environment-issue” in the decades to come:

“The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linked and coordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of their responsibilities in this connection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based on an ethos of the environment” And a little further on he states: “Environmental education should also promote attitudes which would encourage individuals to discipline themselves in order not to impair the quality of the environment and to play a positive role in improving it.”

It is true, under the intentionally vague “environment”-umbrella one can assemble all kinds of calamities and as many solutions to combat them.

“Work in this programme area”, the report continues, “will be intensified “in the line of the conference’s recommendations and move into a more operational fase. This means, among other activities, “making aid from UNESCO available to member states (of the UN) which would like to launch pilot projects”; considering a “bank” of experts on environmental education; augmenting “work in the exchange of experience, in training and in encouraging the production of teaching materials”; and strengthening the Secretariat and UNESCO’s infrastructure in general for the increased promotion of environmental education..”’

In the meeting, the chairman of the conference stressed that no means must or will be shunned in the coming propaganda war against the people:

“Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in the environmental education of various social and occupational categories of the population, such as factory workers, farmers, civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in the preparation of audio-visual and printed teaching materials concerning the environment, and the mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing and informing broad sectors of the public about the environment.”

In a follow-up conference more than ten years later (this time in Moscow) the Secretary-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, discusses “three levels of global education” in regards to the environment. The first, he states, is the “moral imperative” to reach as many people as humanly possible. The second level is “to harness school systems, non-formal learning and informal education to teach and learn about the global issues that shape and threaten the quality of our lives.” Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayor states: “The third level concerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through both simple and highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucial role to play in building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend and expand their freedom and appeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for global education.”

We can hardly accuse the globalists of keeping their plans in the dark. At every possible UN event or brainstorm conference, they openly brag about their plans for the world in quite explicit ways. The Secretary-General continues about the steps that have to be taken in order to build a “new global perception”:

“Our first initiative would be to create a worldwide expert panel of scientists and educators to plan a global education curriculum of practical value and planetary scope.”

The Secretary-General forgets to mention here that just such a panel was created two years earlier by the very organization he presided over.

“Second, putting environmental education at the center of all curricula from kindergarten to higher studies and training the teachers and the administrators who can carry the massage into all schools.(..) Third, promoting a global civic education by devising teaching methods and materials that emphasize the ethics of worldwide community living.(…) Fourth, teaching the children of the wealthier countries about the conditions of their brothers and sisters in the developing world (…) Fifth, working with the mass media and telecommunication enterprises to produce and broadcast audio-visual packages that introduce audiences, particularly children and young people, to the great teachers of this world at al levels and in all cultures (…).”

“And finally”, the Secretary-General concludes, “let me make a very immediate and concrete proposal: building on the broadcast of this forum scheduled for tomorrow (…), to create global television learning networks on the issues of the human agenda for the next century. This would be an experiment in informal global education at its best.”

Under the term ‘Information Repackaging’, the UN has published several manuals on this subject, teaching their cronies how to most effectively influence public opinion. In a 1986 Manual for Repackaging of Information on Population Education, the UNESCO proposes “strategies for integrating population education into different subject areas”- one of these being playing into fears on the part of the population in regards to the subject of their home environment family:

“For instance, the effectiveness of fear appeals in changing attitudes and behaviour, such as the adverse effects of non- or limited access to education and housing facilities with more than two children, depends on the credibility of the source of information and the extent of general/public support to the message conveyed by a particular piece of information. Fear appeals directed to the welfare of people valued by the receiver of information (e.g. family members, close friends) are also effective.”

On page 37 of the manual, under the header “Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)”, the strategy is further elaborated upon:

“One SDI package, for instance, focuses on the integration of population education into environmental education. The package contains materials which will help users understand the relationship between man and the environment, as well as provide insights and actual data on how to plan, teach and implement practical environment/population activities for everyday life.”

As we know, the above mentioned gadgets and gimmicks are being incrementally used in the mass media as the climate change propaganda machine is working overtime. Using the mass media to prepare the population for globalist supreme rule is not only an ambitious plan- it reveals the deceitful spirit behind the provided information, rivaling the work of Joseph Goebbels and his Department of Propaganda.

March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-term plan forworldwide population reduction is not going fast enough according to the social engineers, not by a long shot. Under the desperate headline “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?” this particular policy brief gives an overview of the progress made by developing countries in regards to the globalists set goal of reducing population and proposes several ways of speeding up the death. Richly draped with graphic illustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN to bring back fertility to “acceptable” levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part of governments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring a halt to life.

“The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy the existing unmet need for family planning.”

After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slow progress of the desired culling of the population. They also blame a lack of commitment of the governments concerned and, as expected, they stress the need for a global intervention in order to avoid certain destruction.

This recent policy brief was just one out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite to significantly bring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment the Rockefeller funded family planning-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s, numerous meetings have been held in the last couple of decades where various strategies were discussed to implement population-reduction on as large a scale as possible. The strategies in question were especially directed towards the third world as the globalists had virtual carte blanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conference in Cairo, held in the wake of Agenda 21′s formal kick-off, outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population and Development, stated that:

“I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on this Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.”

During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the “population problem”– one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of “environment” and “human development”:

“Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. These included creation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population and development; advocacy; education; training; population management; gender concerns; monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination and networking.”

Under the headline “Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in their Activities” were mentioned the following activities to “guide” the young into the right mindset by, again, mixing in environmental issues with population issues:

“Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention were the problems dealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, a Working Group Meeting of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCO PROAP to discuss and shape a plan of action integrating issues on environment, population and development for consideration by the youth NGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants were exposed and sensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, and UNESCO in the areas of population, environment and development.”

Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective “carriers of population-information” to hammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:

“With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growing number of televisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential role in building awareness of population and other development issues.”

The report continues with a prime example of predictive programming:

“Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs on population-related issues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact in different countries. The use of such media can be very important where literacy is low or where written information is not widely circulated. A TV soap opera series is credited with bringing thousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-time drama series integrating family planning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.”

In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called “Family Planning Communications Strategies Examined” it was discussed how best to use the media in order to create tolerance among the general public and “how attitudes and beliefs could be changed through the innovative use of traditional and mass media.”

“The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners and covered a wide range of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organize community action in Egypt; the use of micro-communications to encourage acceptance of family planning in the Philippines; the use of traditional and modern media in Ghana; and the use of songs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America. The success in India and Mexico of radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects was also discussed.”

During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed the importance of using mass media to “convey family planning and reproductive health messages”:

“Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind of comprehensive information, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit of population goals.”

In another technical report Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to Gender Disparities for the UN Resident Coordinator System the message is repeatedly conveyed that:

“It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditional means and packaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understand the key messages.”

In 1997 the UNFPA organized a Regional Media Seminar on Population and Development for the role of the mass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for the Pacific islands. The UN officials boasted on the success of the seminar:

“The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of the South Pacific to explore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for population advocacy, information, education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role of the media in developing and packaging population materials for identified target groups. The meeting also provided development partners with an opportunity to forge networks with media personnel and develop effective strategies to better address population and development goals and accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) Programme of Action.”

In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different target audiences. But the people burdened with designing and implementing population education on a large scale emphasized the need for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which the different UN-divisions sell the people on the idea of dehumanization.

“Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA, introduced the work of the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that the Working Group had decided to address the “common advocacy” concern by drawing up a Statement of Commitment that would then be issued by all agencies and organizations involved in the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UN agencies and organizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.”

The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:

“The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.”

In short- in the early 1970s UNESCO laid the groundwork for Agenda 21′s future propaganda-campaigns. A large part of the 1990s was occupied with a coordinated mobilization of mass media for propaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the same strategies worldwide in the first decades of the 21st century. The great global warming swindle then was put into action, arriving just in time as the environmental issue to attach the basic message to: there are too many of us- and our numbers should be reduced before the planet is destroyed. Because the warming is global, the response should be so as well. However eloquently the message may be presented by hopelessly compliant media outlets, it is the tyrant’s voice we discern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate their neighbor in this all-out information war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from the moment of its very conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:

“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

The killer virus into which the prince would like to see himself incarnated, is Agenda 21. War has been declared on mankind. It is high time mankind declares war right back on them.

Read more…

Backwards Thinking

A general dissolution of principals and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams[i]

 

The sanctioned backwards display of the U.S. flag is a perfect example of the backwards thinking of our federal and State governments, as well as our laughable policy-makers in general within the United States. The sad examples of what we call leaders, do much more than support this sort of idiocy, they enthusiastically promote more of the same. But there are other examples of backwards thinking we can look at, not just the flag. Let’s look at the bills Congress passes or attempts to pass. Even a moron tries to read what he is going to sign, although he may be incapable. But Congress routinely signs bills without reading them. The Legislative and Executive Branches have created more public debt than could be paid off in a millennia, yet they continue to foolishly borrow more money from foreign nations with the sole intent of giving that same money to other foreign nations in the form of aid which will never be repaid, only to leave the U.S. taxpayer dangling on the hook with more debt to suffocate him. We allow this by giving the so-called fix to our junkie lawmakers time and time again. Another example is government refusal to police our international borders while we police the borders of foreign nations who neither pay for the service nor wish for our presence in those nations. At the same time, they encourage and we allow overzealous policing of ourselves by an overly militarized police force right here in the United States. Then there is the hypocrisy of government when they speak of the evils of China and Russia (or the former Soviet Union if you will), only to turn around and gladly incarcerate more U.S. citizens than either China or Russia incarcerate, and at a staggering cost. But remember, we are the ‘land of the free.’

So what do We the People do? We enable these forked-tongued prevaricators by giving them whatever they desire, rather than disabling them so they have to slither on their bellies like the snakes which they actually are. This is the backwards thinking of our government officials at every level and these are just some of the tools which they are using to happily bury us with what appears to be our consent.

If you look at the U.S. flag code Section 175 (i), which deals with the position and manner of display of the flag. It states, “When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observers left[ii].” Just so you are not confused by this, it is quite simple. The canton or union, which is blue and holds the stars, always, goes in the upper left hand corner as the crowd is looking at it. So if you hang the flag from your porch, while you look out of your own window and see the canton in the upper right corner, to the people who pass by and see the flag, the canton is in the upper left hand corner. Now we get to my problem. The backwards display of the flag on military uniforms as ordered by the federal government. While the U.S. Army claims this ‘backwards’ display has always been the case (at least for the Army), so the soldiers appear to be advancing and not retreating is really nothing more than a misleading argument. In no way is it possible for a patch of the U.S. flag on the shoulder of a uniform capable of giving anyone the appearance of retreating. I looked at hundreds if not thousands of photos of troops who fought in WWII through the Viet Nam War; I could not find one photo of the patch which was displayed in that fashion. If there was a patch, the canton was always in the upper left corner, I don’t care on what sleeve the patch was on. If you look at old photos of U.S. military aircraft, if there was a flag on the starboard side of the aircraft, the canton was in the upper left hand corner. I asked a friend of mine who is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant if I was right or wrong, he agreed with me. He stated, with a disturbed look on his face, “The canton always goes in the upper left corner, but in the upper right…that was never the case.” The canton always was in the upper left hand corner, until maybe 2002-2003 when some mental midget in the government thought it would be a good idea. I know people think this is a good idea, I personally think it is disgraceful, wrong and it makes me sick. Let’s move on, because the government and at least some of the people seem to have what they want, something backwards.

 

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can best be attained.

Joseph Story[iii]

 

Since the Republican National Convention just happened in Tampa Florida and the Democratic National Convention is happening right now in Charlotte North Carolina, these are good examples. According to an article, “Congress set aside $50 million for security at each of the party conventions for 2012, for a total of $100 million. The total cost to taxpayers of the two national party conventions in 2012 exceeded $136 million[iv].” Here in Tampa, it was like some sort of police state. I personally have never asked the government to protect me in this manner. There were barricades impeding pedestrians and vehicles, cops in gangs roaming about. In fact you couldn’t walk 100 ft. without encountering a bunch of them. Did they bother people? No, but that isn’t the point. If I wanted to live in the Middle East, that’s where I would go. So are we to actually believe, our so-called leaders need this type of security? If they do, then they are obviously doing something wrong. I cannot believe the security was to protect them against al Qaeda, because we know it was to protect them from Americans. What would possibly make U.S. politicians feel as though they need that type of security to protect themselves from U.S. citizens? If the massive security was to protect property from protesters, then it also seems like overkill. People do have the right to protest, whether I agree with them or not. But to assume they will be a violent mob in some way violates the 1st Amendment; the right to the people to peaceably assemble. Where does it say peaceably assemble under threat of an overly militarized police force? Or in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; nor be deprived of…liberty…without due process of law. Barricades and an excessive police presence do in fact deprive us of our liberty. But once again I will state, in no way did the police act in a Nazi-like fashion. However, I still have a problem with the apparent lack of trust by our elected government officials who feel this type of security is needed with regard to U.S. citizens.

An example of our leaders not paying attention is the Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA). Why would there need to be such an Act if our legislators actually read what they were signing? According to Downsize DC, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens. Neither should it be for Congress[v].” The report goes on to state, “Any member of Congress wishing to cast an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the creation or retention of a program of bureaucracy, must sign an affidavit swearing that he or she has either…read the entire bill or heard the entire bill read.” Can you actually imagine our geniuses in Congress passing legislation without reading the bill first? Keep in mind, this isn’t like reading a thousand page novel, this is difficult stuff and takes time, effort and thought. We know there is absolutely no way they can read and understand something that large or complex in a short period of time. Maybe if the plumbing wasn’t so difficult, it wouldn’t be so easy to stop up the drain. Bills should be simplified and they should stick to the proposed idea or intent of the bill and not have phony pork-laden trailers added ad nauseam. So the easy answer to what has been happening is, Congress is and has been passing bills without reading them. I believe this is criminal behavior. Why you ask? Simple, fraud is a crime in the United States. To enact a law which affects us all without knowing what is actually in the law is fraudulent. The devil is always in the details and lawmakers should know that. US News reported, “Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives…all but admitted that few if any members of Congress will read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it[vi].” Representative Hoyer further stated, “If every member pledged not to vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” That would actually be a good thing. But be that as it may, it certainly is nice to know our elected leaders don’t find it important enough to take the time to read, digest and discuss the bills which have a huge impact on American citizens. Someone should really slip in something that states these fools will accept a 95% pay cut, but you can bet they would read that part of any bill.

 

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall[vii]

 

A perfect example of us borrowing money just so we can give it back to the same nation would be China. House “Republicans and Democrats bashed the programs during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Asia and Pacific panel, calling them a “giant mistake of thinking” by the State Department and “an insult” to taxpayers in America[viii].” For once I can actually applaud the words of some politicians. But, even though Congress controls the purse-strings, they still allow this to happen. So once again the State Department and their misguided foreign policy agenda strikes and our impotent House members can only be ‘insulted.’ According to the Daily Mail in the UK, “The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries – while at the same time borrowing billions back[ix].” Articles like this one make it very difficult to think that U.S. lawmakers aren’t slightly ‘special’ when it comes to intelligence. The report went on to name some of the countries receiving the aid in 2010, “China…$27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m. Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.” This is why we pay so much money in taxes. The government throws our money around the globe like the Secret Service does while on duty in a Columbian brothel. How and why we allow this to continue is beyond me, but it is quite easy to see why our public debt as of 4 September 2012 is a whopping $16,009,448,000,594.65[x]. Remember how Thomas Jefferson described public debt, as “A departure of principle” which reduces us to “Mere automations of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression[xi].” Thomas Jefferson was not wrong.

According to Vet Friends, “No military in the history of the world has been more widely deployed as the United States. Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 countries…This covers 75% of The World’s Nations[xii].” In a Tampa Bay Times report, Ron Paul states, “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke[xiii].” Even if we split the difference between 150 and 130 nations, that’s still 140 nations out of roughly 196 nations (that number changes depending  on who is calculating the number). Still, if we had those troops in the United States, securing our borders instead of everyone else’s borders, do you think it would cost so much? Plus, the United States and our borders would be better protected and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Does South Korea really need us there to secure the DMZ? I’ll bet if we left and told them what they do is their business, the ROK would stomp on North Korea in no time. How about Europe? Maybe Europeans nations should guard their own borders, I like Europe, but if they can’t handle their own security, maybe they should be called something else. Either way, that wouldn’t be my concern, it would be theirs. My concern as should be the concern of all Americans is the United States of America, not every other nation on the planet. Read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. To ‘provide for the common defence… to ourselves and to our Posterity’ is for the United States, not Korea, Germany, or any other nation. I don’t believe in the U.S. being the policemen of the world and if we are going to be that, then I believe people of other nations should be paying us handsomely for the service.

Let’s take a moment to talk about prison populations around the globe. While we all know for a fact we are the land of the free, which might not actually be true when you stop to consider we have more people in prison than any other nation on this planet. According to Nation Master[xiv], we have 715 people out of 100K people in prison, while Russia has 584 per 100K and China has 119 out of 100K. If you take these numbers, you come up with about 2.5m incarcerated in the U.S. to China’s 7.14m. If Nation Master’s figures are correct, and if you figure China has 6 billion people and we have 350 million, then we still incarcerate the most per capita. Stop and consider the fact that China has a population over 17 times greater than the United States, but we have a third as many people incarcerated. However, in a 2006 report by Natural News, “The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.” The report goes on to state, “A report released by the justice department…a record 7 million people -- were incarcerated, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005, with 2.2 million of them in prison or jail[xv].” So how ever you do the math, the United States has far more people incarcerated than any other nation per population. Then there is “China ranking second with 1.5 million prisoners, and Russia sitting in third with 870,000.” A CBS News report about the U.S. prisons or ‘Incarceration Nation’ stated, “A report by the organization, “The Price of Prisons,” states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it’s anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000[xvi].” It seems fairly obvious there has been a push in the United States to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to sustain what I believe is an institution which has no intention of ever getting smaller. Prisons are now being built and operated by private companies, not that it wasn’t bad enough to have the government doing this to their own people, now it is for-profit prisons and we all know they are only going to get bigger. “Is it fair to call the United States “incarceration nation”?” Fairness has nothing to do with what is happening in the United States to the people through petty laws meant to strip us of our freedoms and keep us locked up in prisons so a profit can be turned.

 

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry[xvii]

 

We should all remember how the founding fathers of this nation wanted limited federal government. While the people within each sovereign State can easily make up the laws as they see fit, nobody needs to go there if those laws are too draconian. But when the federal government gets it claws into you, there is little chance you will ever break free. While you may or may not like my analogy of the backwards flag, keep in mind our so-called leaders are backwards, and they prove it time and time again. Why else would they pay $100 million for security for 2 weeks of political conventions, when we know they are trying to protect themselves from us, not to protect the cities from a foreign attack. Why would they sign bills without reading them? Those bills impact us greatly. Why would they borrow money from foreign nations only to give it back to foreign nations, while we suffocate under a $16 trillion plus public debt? Why would we have our troops in 75% of the nations of the world, while we are policed by an overly militarized police force right here at home? Are we that much of a threat? Yet our borders protections are much like a malfunctioning sieve, allowing practically anyone or anything to pass. I guess in the end that is why we have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. It’s nice to know the U.S. government has such affection for its people. Perhaps we should show our government the same kind of affection. I realize they don’t think the laws apply to them, but they do.

 

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

 

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

 

REFERENCES

[i] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Samuel Adams. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[ii] The Flag of the United States of America; U.S. Flag Code, http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

[iii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Joseph Story. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[v] Downsize DC; The Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA), https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

[vii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, John Marshall. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[ix] Daily Mail UK; U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world’s richest countries – then asks to borrow it back, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393960/US-gives-billions-foreign-aid-worlds-richest-countries-asks-borrow-back.html

[x] US National Debt Clock; The Outstanding Public Debt, Ed Hall. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[xi] Spirit of America Liberty Quotes; Quotes from the Founding Fathers, http://dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

[xii] VETFRIENDS; US Deployment Facts – How many US Troops are Overseas? http://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/

[xiii] The Tampa Bay Times; Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

[xv] Natural News; United States imprisons more people than China, Russia or any other nation, experts say, http://www.naturalnews.com/021290_prison_system_incarceration.html

[xvii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Patrick Henry. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/index2.htm

Read more…

Ship of State? No, Ship of Fools....

I have to literally force myself to watch the Democratic convention. It actually turns my stomach to see so many so-called Americans so ready and WILLING to sell this great nation out. I cannot, in any state or degree of dementia, bring myself to agree with anything they stand for. Their platform writhes and transforms daily to fit the immediate needs of the party. They delete references to Israel and then the next day they put them back in. They support this or that position and then 12 hours later they take a completly different tack and change course. How can any "thinking" person decide it is in our best interests to let these people run the government? The Democrats are the party of indecision and deceit. They circumvent the Constitution and other tenents of law to get whatever they want. I am at a loss to discern how so many lawyers can be so ignorant of the founding documents. It must be willful. No one could be that stupid by accident. Enough for now. I have much to study and articles to write. I think I need to address the notion that we are all "owned" by the government. That one floored me when I heard it. Later, my fellow patriots

 

By His Grace, For His Glory

GreyTigerTX

Read more…

It is now official.  Democrats will move rock star Barrack Obama's big presidential nomination acceptance speech indoors.   Instead of performing before a crowd of 74,000 in an outdoor stadium, the show will now 4063574237?profile=originalbe put on in a much, much smaller indoor arena.

The “official” line, the cover story if you will, is that there are concerns about rain.  But convention sources disclosed that the real reasons for the switch were fears that many of the seats in the 74,000-seater Bank of America stadium would be empty.

The Time Warner arena holds about 20,000 people.  In rock star terms, reducing seating capacity from 74,000 to 20,000 is a significant downgrade.  It sounds like the Rolling Stones being forced to move a concert from the Rose Bowl to the Staples Center due to lagging ticket sales.

It illustrates how the biggesst rock star of the “progressive” Democratic Party is less like the Rolling Stones and more like Spinal Tap.

http://www.imdb.com/video/amazon/vi2669191193/

4063573834?profile=originalIn 2008, when Obamamania was at a fever pitch, filling 84,000-seater Invesco Field in Denver, Colorado was child’s play. But waning voter enthusiasm has led to an embarrassing reduction in drawing power.   So far this year, Obama’s biggest crowd has been 14,000 in Columbus, Ohio.  Last week at a rally in Boulder, Colorado, 13,000 were in attendance.

Gone are the swooning fans, fainting on cue.  Missing are calls to bring his concert tour to major European cities.  The days when Barrack Obama was the biggest rock star on the planet have come and gone.  People are no longer throwing money in his direction.  The days of performing “Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight” are over.  Now he desperately sings “Gimme Some Money.”

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/rock-star-obama-is-spinal-tap-not-the-rolling-stones/

Read more…

"Barbie Obama's" Fairytale

4063574178?profile=original

Then and now, how four years can change the Barack and Michelle Obama rhetoric – it’s like Ken & Barbie Obama had a Mattel makeover right in front of our eyes.  The speech last night by Michelle Obama was polished and unless one knew the truth it would be easy to fall into the same dismal political Obama pit of 2008. 

 

Michelle Obama has moved into the clutches of the Obama Administration and Liberal News Media and is now but a victim of the times. The story told last night by Michelle Obama at the DNC Convention was nothing more than a fairytale Cinderella story that was devoid and empty of truth – a story concocted to prey on the emotions of the poor, women, the African American Community and the Hispanics. 

 

Michelle set the scene describing Obama’s youth describing him as a poor boy without a penny to his name driving an old rusty worn out car and wearing shoes a size too small.  She spins a story about an unknown, knowing full well that none of us have seen his student loans and most of us believe he had a free educational ride here as a foreign student.

 

In fact, none of us know who this person that some call President Obama really is – the little bit we do know isn’t exactly the kind of information that would make us believe he is or was qualified to lead our Country. His past 3 ½ years confirms that suspicion.

 

The fact is last night’s speech by Michelle Obama was just a rerun of Obama’s 2008 speeches. She painted a false image of the man she calls her husband – it’s hard to believe that Democrats actually think most Americans will buy the regurgitated “hope and change.”

 

The changes in 3 ½ years are the most devastatingly changes of our lifetime. Our hard earned money, retirement and our hope was crushed by Obama. He stole our stimulus money for his friends, special interest groups, Unions and corrupt lending institutions. He increased our National Debt over 5 trillion dollars – he squandered our monies on his personal sacred cows.

 

So when Michelle says he’s a caring person fighting for his Country I beg to differ with her.  He is a dictator striving to promote a new world order and destroy the greatest Nation in the World.

 

When Michelle mentions women and how Obama is fighting for them – that’s an outright lie or fabrication. During his term as President he has actively under a guise campaigned against women, all women and not one thing outside of securing a few condoms, promise of sex changes and some free healthcare that we’re all paying for can be attributed to Obama. Women are losing jobs daily, they have been relegated to the ancient history shelf with the promise that “big Daddy Government” will care for them.

 

She briefly mentioned education for our youth – the fact is our college graduates are living in their parents’ garages or basements. No jobs and no hope of jobs!

 

What Michelle didn’t mention which confirms the shallow platform of the Democrats is: (1)  high unemployment, (2) National Deficit over 16 trillion, (3) Businesses big and small closing their doors or moving out of our Country and (4) The fact we’re not better off then we were four years ago. 

 

Democrats have controlled the Government since 2006.  They have refused to even try to balance our budget. They are addicted to spending much more than we take in and their platform is nothing but a bunch of “hope and change” rhetoric without solutions, without substantial realistic plans to restore our weakened Nation.

 

As Ronald Reagan said "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

 

May God Bless America

As Always.

Little Tboca

Read more…

QUOTE from GOD's WORD: " A nation without GOD's guidance is a nation without order. Happy are those who keep GOD's Law." [Pr. 29:18] Today's English Version

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE STEPPED OVER THE LINE THIS TIME ~
the HAVE DROPPED 'GOD' FROM THEIR PARTY PLATFORM!

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:

We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

THE WORD OF GOD says,: " When evil people are in 'power', that crime will increase, and every despicable work of satan; but the righteous will live to see such people fall." [Pr. 29:16] TEV

QUOTE from GOD's WORD: " A nation without GOD's guidance is a nation without order. Happy are those who keep GOD's Law." [Pr. 29:18] Today's English Version

THE WORD of GOD says: "His arrogance will bring the devastating downfall ; but you that remain faithful, and stay humble in righteous-ness will be respected!"[Pr.29:23] TEV

THE WORD of GOD says: " If one wishes to stay out of trouble, be careful what you say. Show me a conceited person<Scoffer is his name>and GOD Says: I Will Show you someone who is Arrogant, Proud, and totally Inconsiderate." [Pr. 21:23-24]

Speaking as a 'Prophet of GOD'~ I KNOW THAT THERE IS STILL A REMNANT IN THE USA~ as I have been declaring since 1985, "IT IS TIME FOR ALL, to humble themselves, and PRAY that GOD WILL FORGIVE US, AND FORGIVE THIS NATION, that WE HAVE ALLOWED TO BE OVERRUN BY SIN! And 'WE THE PEOPLE' know that GOD WILL HEAR OUR PRAYERS of REPENTANCE, and HEAL THE UNITED STATE of AMERICA" [2 Chr. 7:14] Today's English Version

Read more…

how to assure the distruction of any nation

When a nation embarks down the path to socialism and gives the fruits of the labors of productive members of the society to non-productive members of that society it will not be more than 1 generation until that nation will bankrupt itself !

It can be done even quicker if that nation also desires to spend massive funds on military expenditures and infrastructure as well as providing social welfare for all.

The USA now faces this fact but the democrats are blind to the coming storm

I do suspect that we will see a massive social upheavle and soo.

Read more…

Spain’s Present is Obama America’s Future

Although Spain is not as bad off as Greece, a look at Spain’s current economic reality reveals the future of 4063573816?profile=originalAmerica under four more years of Barrack Obama.

Despite European commitments to inject up to 100 billion euros into Spain’s faltering banking system, bank withdrawals have accelerated.  During July, doubts about Spain’s financial system caused Spaniards to withdraw a record $94 billion from their banks.   That amounts to 7 percent of Spain’s total domestic economic output.

Capital flight is beginning to include educated entrepreneurs who are fed up with scant job opportunities in a country with a 25 percent unemployment rate.  Statistics show that in a twelve month span 30,000 Spaniards have registered to work in Britain, an increase of 25 percent over 2011 levels.

Since taking office in 2009, Obama has aggressively promoted a “green energy” agenda modeled after the one pursued by Spain.  The assumption that pursuing the same agenda will bring about different results is 4063573834?profile=originalbased on no known empirical data.

If American voters are willing to accept 25 percent unemployment as the new normal and can live with a combination of major investment capital flight and disappearing employment opportunities, then Obama’s re-election is a foregone conclusion.

However, if Americans prefer to see a resurgence of American economic might through development of its domestic energy resources, and the millions of jobs that activity will create, then Obama’s days in the White House are numbered.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/spains-present-is-obama-americas-future/

Read more…

When a population moves, metaphorically, in a certain direction it is usually guided or influenced by current national circumstances, by political leaders who feed the masses with what they believe are policies that will ensure their re-election.

In times of self induced debt and economic decline, a nostalgic belief in a socialized system for the equalization of wealth becomes a mantra for those who support government bred entitlements. As we have often stated in these columns, entitlements become part of the DNA or genetic make-up of the recipients. Thus, politicians whose main goal is the perpetuation of their incumbency, will feed these wants and desires at the expense of the national State.

As the State runs out of money and attempts proper fiscal management, the disruption to the flow of entitlements leaves it open to protests and even riots as in the case of Greece. The Greeks are unhappy with the fact they are unable to continue to enjoy the fruits of European membership without cutting some of the overly generous benefits their politicians have been able to bestow. The Germans on the other hand who have the power to rescue them, feel why should they have to work until they are 67 and receive 47% of their last salary, and the Greeks work until they are 54 and get 94% of their last salary?

It is certainly incredible that the old adage, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, is perfectly apt when looking at socialism, its various forms, and its multiple failures. It does appear that government in the USA is headed toward a form of socialism that the population could easily accept, given the proper spin by its advocates. The spin, as with all socialist ideology, is aimed at the working class, the less fortunate in society, and the well intentioned but easily spun liberal. Finally, independent thinkers who are unable to disentangle the disingenuous, the misalignment of statistics, or the outright distortions of the presenter, become susceptible to amnesia of the history of socialism. Thus, we ignore history and embrace what has gone before even though the result will be a foregone conclusion.

To accept socialism is to desire self-flagellation, to accept punishment by accepting government control in many facets of life is to cede one’s freedom to authoritarian rule. One of the most ridiculous statements I ever heard came from a liberal leaning US tourist I was talking to on a visit to Mexico. I happened to mention that I felt sorry for the plight of the poor people in the market place. My friend said, “Oh, they are very happy!” I thought to myself, put yourself in their shoes. You might be happy, but would you be content? Therein lies the difference between those who keep the poor in their place, and those of us who want to raise them up with capitalistic opportunity. If you are poor you want freedom to rise above your station. Only capitalism can provide this opportunity. Ask any Cuban!

Read more…

A.K.A.

Democrats are poised to avoid the danger of President Barack Obama accepting his party’s nomination before a partially-empty stadium by shifting his speech to an indoor arena and citing ‘severe weather’.

"severe weather"...A.K.A. the economy, jobs, G.E(jobs went overseas),GM STIMULUS(Union Pensions Bailout)..

Obamascare, Chicago murder city Mayor, 16 trillion DEBT!, etc etc etc...really really severe "weather"!!!!

Read more…

URGENT

Read more…

Aaron Dykes Infowars

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” -Attributed to Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting

For those who’ve been wondering how the domestic gun grabbers or the United Nations think they’re going to get away with gun control here at home, one need look no further than Article 15 of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty.

 

Many American troops are patriots who understand their oaths to uphold the Constitution, so they can’t be counted upon to confiscate guns. But foreign troops are another story.

Article 15 of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, provides for foreign “assistance to implement the Treaty,” and mandates that nations who can provide requested support must do so if requested by member nations. That includes legal, financial, technical as well as “material” assistance to enforce a treaty that declares “recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities” to be the “exclusively” recognized reasons for lawful private ownership, and which further recognizes the “inherent rights” of the State (i.e. nations under the treaty) to self-defense, but makes no mention of the rights of the individual.

Read the language of Article 15 for yourself:

 

Article 15 International Assistance In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty. Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Will foreign troops be going door-to-door to ensure compliance with new gun registry policies, imposed limits on ammunition and magazines, or in enforcing outright confiscation? Joint training exercises conducted between U.S. armed forces and various foreign armies have trained to do just that.

In 2010, the Infowars crew covered Operation Vigilant Guard, a joint training exercise in Chicago, in which U.S. troops drilled with Eastern bloc troops to partner in stopping terrorism, dealing with meth dealers and WMDs, as well as in gun confiscation. Countless other exercises have taken place on U.S. soil involving similar joint operations for a martial law occupation with the participation of foreign troops:

 

 

Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans

American troops were ordered to conduct door-to-door gun confiscation sweeps after Hurricane Katrina, and while it has emerged that at least one unit stood down and refused the order, many more carried out the unconstitutional mission. That precedent has been followed by other exercises training American soldiers for gun seizures, along with other martial law measures.

Infowars Nightly News co-host Rob Dew underscored the history of training to take American guns in his recent viral report:

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

Meanwhile, the United Nations itself has forcibly disarmed numerous African nations using foreign troops, and the vacuum of power has led in several cases to genocidal atrocities as a direct result of taking away arms. The genocide in Rwanda was enabled by forcible disarmament. As Republic Magazine writes, the mass murder was “carried out by government-aligned Hutu tribal militias against a targeted ethnic population – the Tutsis – who had been disarmed with the help of UN “peacekeeping” forces under the supervision of future UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.” The Darfur crisis in Sudan also has its roots in UN-led population disarmament, as does the Burma (Myanmar) massacre, again the result of disarmament. Armed troops representing international interests including the World Bank burned down homes and killed children in effort to forcibly evict some 40,000 Ugandans on the basis of conserving lands to combat climate change.

Indeed, genocide and disarmed populations go hand-in-hand through history– just look at the history of Democide (death by government). R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii is the leading academic on the subject, and has estimated that more than 262 million unnatural deaths in the 20th Century alone were caused by government, and most were at the hands of despots preying upon their helpless peoples. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, to Turkey, Armenia and beyond, gun bans have created a shift in the balance of power towards the state, creating an atmosphere of victim disarmament.

Blue helmets or foreign uniforms have no place on foreign soil, yet the UN Arms Trade Treaty text reveals a mechanism to impose just that type of control– even in America.

Read the treaty text for yourself and see our report from : Bombshell: Leaked UN Treaty Does Ban Guns

Read more…

The Obama Deception

As we move closer to election day, here is a video that if you haven't seen it, you should. It offers an oportunity to help in formulating an informed perspective on what is currently transpiring in our country. I believe we are at a crossroads which requires every concerned American to be as informed as possible and that this election is of particular significance to the future welfare of the United States of America.

 

So, after supper, make yourself a cup of tea, have a seat and prepare to find out how President Obama was put in place to advance the globalist agenda. You are going to be barraged with information you may not have been aware of that  the controlled media has worked very hard to make sure you never see, so make sure you choose a time when you won't be interrupted. It is a little under two hours.

 

"The Obama Deception"

Read more…

Those who support a "FLAT TAX"

What is a flat tax ?

A flat tax is still a tax on labor which is no different than partial slavery !

The problem today is most folks do not understand our economic system and they seem to think that taxes

are collected to pay the bills of the Government in Washington. [WRONG} 

So what is the taxes on income designed to do?

Control the currency supply to control inflation at the desired rates 

So how does the Federal government pay the bills ?

By borrowing currency into circulation from the fed and the interest on the currency borrowed is the rent for use of the currency

Most Americans are clueless as to how the system works and they are kept in the dark because if they understood how the bankers have defrauded the citizens of the USA they might revolt and hang the bankers from the closest lamp post.

Want a brief on how it works ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8RtL3azDg

Read more…