A Patriot's Perspective

Oil Spills & Solar Panels

2010-06-23T11:12:00.006-04:00

The recent disastrous oil spill in the gulf is a reminder of the dangers of fossil fuel dependency and is doing exactly what it was supposed to; giving a kick start to the controversial Cap and Trade legislation. But the debate over clean energy has been going on as long as I have been alive. In my day, solar panels were the "green solution" to clean energy. Harnessing the power of the sun to heat and cool homes was very popular in the 70's. The technology has been around for a lot longer than you may think, its history spans from 7th Century BC to today. Due to the crude oil trade embargo of the 70's, homes were built with solar panels. These energy saving panels, didn't however make the huge monopolistic energy companies any money.

Lets take a realistic look at what happened to this green energy. The laws of supply and demand usually spur innovation and production. Even beanie babies can attest to that. So why would something that saves consumers money and is in demand go away? The moment a consumer sees a reduced heating bill, why would they ever have a home without solar panels? Yet you only occasionally see homes still fitted with them. Did consumers change their minds about saving money? Installation of solar panels in homes by a retailer can cost upwards of $20,000 dollars and that savings is seen after many years. But consumers have the ability to build their own for hundreds of dollars. This tells us that solar panels were over priced right out of the market. If a consumer can build something for a couple hundred dollars that would cost $20,000 retail, something isn't quite right.

And lets look further to another green mainstay, wind power. Wind turbines and wind technology is another green solution that has been around for as long as humans, and can be seen as early as 5,000 B.C. , yet the technology has only been popping up in last 20 years. All this cheap energy and why does it cost so much for every day consumers to utilize it?

If products are not available or affordable to consumers they will not be used. In the case of wind turbines, most cities tie up wind technology in zoning legislation. Yet wind technology could easily allow us to tell energy companies to pound salt.

Energy companies have a monopoly on American energy and are big enough and rich enough to pay off elected officials to ensure we have no choices in the marketplace. Contrary to our supposed Capitalistic society. The Cap & Trade legislation, according to Obama, is to allow these monopolies to retrofit their operations to green energy and that they will pass that cost on to consumers. But why would we give these corrupt dinosaurs first access to green energy? They have had the opportunity to retool for decades. They've enjoyed no competition and the ability to set their price with no intervention from government. They've made literally billions of dollars off the American people. If they, at this point have not seen the good sense to "Go Green" The Federal government should be telling them: too bad- so sad, you missed the boat.

Let that green opportunity go to new businesses that can offer consumers affordable solutions in the marketplace. Let these greedy energy giants die on the vine. This legislation is so misplaced. A move toward renewable energy does not require an enormous tax scheme. The American people are not responsible for big energy's costs for what they should have done years ago. Here's a clue; use the money you already made in profit to retrofit your operations. If the government offered business loans for new green energy companies and rewarded businesses for offering affordable green solutions, it would actually create jobs, ease our dependence on fossil fuels and move us in the direction of economic recovery. Instead the government wants to hand over this great opportunity to the tired old corrupt status qou monopolies so they can make even more money off of us while they get with the program.

If Obama truly cared about consumers, the environment and green energy he would not be touching Cap & Trade with a ten foot pole. Instead he clearly identifies who he's in bed with. The demand is great for green solutions. Consumers would be eating up affordable solar panels and affordable wind turbines if our government would just stop getting in the way. Ask yourself why we can't do this on our own? Ask yourself why there are no companies out there that can offer us green solutions so we can tell our utility providers to get lost? Why have no companies seen this opportunity to produce solar panels and wind turbines and been flooding the market with products?

It reminds of a story. Stanley Meyer invented something called a water fuel cell. It would allow consumers to fill up their cars using a common garden hose. Stanley died suddenly in March of 1998, but not before the Pentagon seized the technology. Of Course Meyer was portrayed as a fraud in the media and the technology died with him. What is the incentive to create low cost energy when after hundreds of years all we still do is hold on to fossil fuels. The mystery is why. But in all actuality the why is money. Energy companies run the show and they want a piece of this "green" pie and our government is handing that giant slice on a silver platter. It is in our hands, we have to put in end to the rapping of America.

PBS

2010-06-05T23:46:00.003-04:00

I watched a PBS special about a couple who had an autistic child, they were modern hippie parents not to be confused with hippies of the 60's and 70's. The modern day hippies have taken a big giant dose of the Kool-aid. The hippies of the 60's didn't trust the government, were against war and were for personal freedom mainly in the venue of personal recreational drug use. The new hippies of today buy everything their government tells them including global warming and liberalism to an extreme. Little do they know that Autism is linked mainly to government forced vaccinations, and forced medicated fluoride in the water. The hippies of the past would never have accepted these developments but would have been hosting love ins and protests against government control. The current hippies or liberals haven't a clue because in stark contrast they believe EVERYTHING their government tells them. Watching it told me how incredibly powerful propaganda is in modern age society. Hitler after all, was voted in by 95% of the population due to a very effective propaganda campaign which tells us evil only has to utilize tried and true methods of control to disable a nation of thinkers to be drones. The liberals or hippies of our society use to question everything, now they back everything the government tells them too in the name of liberalism or Socialism. They have no idea their beliefs are powered by beliefs that will eventually prove to be the biggest anti-American sentiment America has ever known. Freedom is something the hippies of days gone by understood, those liberals we see now are just pawns in a critical intellectual battle. Hippies can choose to think or buy in, buying in means the end of freedom as we know it. We all pray, thinking becomes the norm again!

good stuff

2010-02-27T11:04:00.001-05:00

Audit The Fed Bill Gutted!

2009-10-31T13:17:00.003-04:00

By Bob Ivry | Bloomberg

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been “gutted” while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.

The bill, with 308 co-sponsors, has been stripped of provisions that would remove Fed exemptions from audits of transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff, Paul said today.

“There’s nothing left, it’s been gutted,” he said in a telephone interview. “This is not a partisan issue. People all over the country want to know what the Fed is up to, and this legislation was supposed to help them do that.”

The Fed, led by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, has come under greater congressional scrutiny while attempting to end the financial crisis by bailing out financial firms and more than doubling its balance sheet to $2.16 trillion in the past year. The central bank is also buying $1.25 trillion of securities tied to home loans.

Paul, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said Mel Watt, a Democrat from North Carolina, has eliminated “just about everything” while preparing the legislation for formal consideration. Watt is chairman of the panel’s domestic monetary policy and technology subcommittee.

Keith Kelly, a spokesman for Watt, declined to comment and said Watt wasn’t immediately available for an interview. Watt’s district includes Charlotte, headquarters of Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. lender.

Original Language

Paul said he intends to introduce an amendment to the bill when it comes to the House floor for a vote restoring the legislation’s original language.

Continue

Excerpted from pp. 44-46 of The Great Derangement

[W]hen you’re looking at the process by which any bill gets passed into law, on the House side at least there are only a few people who really matter. Those people are the majority leader, the chairman of the relevant “committee of jurisdiction” (i.e. Energy and Commerce for the oil industry, Financial Services for Wall Street firms, etc.), the chairman of the Rules Committee, the chairs of the House-Senate conference committee, the House Speaker and perhaps a few other members of the conference committee.

These people are important because this small group can essentially ram a bill into law all by themselves. If you control all of these seats, you control every space on the congressional Monopoly board within which the bill can be written or altered unilaterally.

There are four main way stations on the road to a bill’s passage. There’s the committee of jurisdiction, where the bill, after being introduced, goes through what is called a markup process. In a markup, the committee decides what goes in the bill and what does not. The markup process is supervised by the committee chairman. Theoretically the markup process is put to a general vote by the committee, but in this Congress the reality is that the chairman puts in what he wants and chucks what he doesn’t want out the window.

He then sends the bill to the Rules Committee, where other House members from outside the committee – usually freaked-out minority members desperate to stop this or that criminally insane provision cleverly hidden in the committee version – have a chance to submit amendments to the bill. The Rules chairman tries not to laugh, somberly nukes every meaningful amendment request with a pained, regretful expression, and then takes the bill behind closed doors, where it can be rewritten (usually in the middle of the night) to include all the shit the House leadership knew was way to evil to survive public discussion in the original committee of jurisdiction.

Rules then puts the finishing touches on the bill’s language and sends it to the floor the very next morning. The version that leaves the rules committee is now called not a bill, but a rule. The Rules Committee is supposed to give House members three days to read the rule before it goes to a vote, but the three-day period can be waived in case of emergency. The “emergency” has been in place for five consecutive years now; virtually every bill that has passed through the house in the Bush era has been voted on just hours after emerging from the hairy womb of the Rules Committee.

After the House passes the rule, which of course no one voting on it has read, the world then waits for the Senate to pass its own hideous version of the legislation. But alas, the bill cannot be sent to the president until the differences between the House and Senate versions – consisting generally of differing sets of campaign donor hand-jobs hidden in the two bills – can be ironed out. This ironing out is done in the conference committee.

The mechanism of conference committee is a special voodoo all unto itself, a monstrously complex bureaucratic maze whose diabolical scheme is known to a select few congressional practitioners. But for the moment, only two facts are important.

The first is that the bill can again be completely rewritten here, rewritten from top to bottom, rewritten even so that it has a completely opposite meaning from the bills that passed the two houses – in a word, re written in such a fashion as to render the whole process up to now meaningless.

The second is that a majority vote of conference committee members, called “conferees,” is not even required for passage. Again, the conference committee chairs are the key players here. Whatever the top dogs from the House and the Senate want generally occurs. They redo the bill according to whatever swinish commercial dynamic happens to govern this back-room deal (for the conference hearings are almost always conducted out of the public eye), then send the final version for a vote, again giving the members just a few hours’ notice before they make an essentially blind decision on the by-now completely revised legislation.

Somewhere along the line, campaign donors apparently figured out that by a careful stewarding of their contributions, they could – instead of spending gargantuan sums to buy the wide majority of House and Senate members necessary for an open vote on the floor – instead target those members who could simply rewrite the important parts of the bill in secret.

Funny Dogs!

2009-10-19T21:42:00.003-04:00

Big Bird helping to promote the Birth Certificate issue

2009-10-04T11:57:00.000-04:00

Mom, says Ron Paul the only Congressman representing the people in Washington

2009-09-26T09:09:00.001-04:00

The Day the SWAT Team Came Crashing Through My Door

2009-09-21T13:01:00.003-04:00

I remember thinking, as I kneeled at gunpoint with my hands bound on my living room floor, that there had been a terrible, terrible mistake.

An errant Prince George's County SWAT team had just forced its way into our home, shot dead our two black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and started ransacking our belongings as part of what would become a four-hour ordeal.

The police found nothing, of course, to connect my family and me to a box of drugs that they had been tracking and had delivered to our front door. The community -- of which I am mayor -- rallied to our side. A FedEx driver and accomplice were arrested in a drug trafficking scheme. Ultimately, we were cleared of any wrongdoing, but not before the incident drew international outrage.

This was 14 months ago. We have since filed suit, and I am confident that we will find justice more quickly than most.

Yet, I remain captured by the broader implications of the incident. Namely, that my initial take was wrong: It was no accident but rather business as usual that brought the police to -- and through -- our front door.

In the words of Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the assault, "the guys did what they were supposed to do" -- acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George's is standard fare. The only difference this time seems to be that the victim was a clean-cut white mayor with community support, resources and a story to tell the media.

What confounds me is the unmitigated refusal of county leaders to challenge law enforcement and to demand better -- as if civil rights are somehow rendered secondary by the war on drugs.

Let me give you three specific concerns underscored by our case.

First, the Prince George's Police Department's internal affairs function is broken. When the Justice Department released the county police from federal supervision in February, internal affairs was the one area that was not cleared. Internal affairs division (IAD) investigations were required to take no longer than 90 days. More than a year after our ordeal, my family awaits the IAD report on what happened at our home. The statute of limitations for officer misconduct is 12 months, which means that any wrongdoers are off the hook.

Next, there is significant evidence that the county is broadly violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. After initially claiming that they had a "no-knock" warrant to forcibly enter our home, county police acknowledged that they did not have one. But they went on to contend that there is no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant in Maryland. But this isn't true. A statewide "no-knock" warrant statute was passed in 2005. Effectively, the county is denying the existence of state law. We can't get the county to say whether it has ever followed the law or, at a minimum, even acknowledges it.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, county police may be lying to cover up their civil rights violations. A county officer on the scene told Berwyn Heights police a fabricated tale to justify the warrantless entry into our home. The lie disappeared after police learned that I was the mayor. Charges of a police coverup are hardly unusual, but there is significant evidence that county law enforcement engaged in a conspiracy on our lawn to justify an illegal entry. Nothing strikes at the heart of police credibility like creative report writing and false testimony to cover up a lie or even put innocent people behind bars. Swift and serious consequences are the best deterrent.

In fairness, some good has come from the incident. State leaders have passed legislation that will provide statewide oversight of SWAT teams -- a first-in-the-nation law that will shine a light on the troubling trend of paramilitary policing.

Yet, the wagons have circled in Upper Marlboro. The response is textbook: Law enforcement stands its ground and concedes no wrongdoing -- and elected officials bury their heads in the sand.

As an imperfect elected official myself, I can understand a mistake -- even a terrible one. But a pattern and practice of police abuse treated with utter indifference rips at the fabric of our social compact and virtually guarantees more of the same.

Link

The Real Astroturf

2009-09-20T14:57:00.001-04:00

click on each arm to see what hand they play in the whole net neutrality issue.

Freedom Watch

2009-09-20T14:29:00.000-04:00

Anne Wortham

2009-09-11T17:57:00.002-04:00

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am Black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul's name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a Black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a Black president to love the ideal of America.

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.

I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America.

Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million Blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that Blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including, and, especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a Black man to the office of the president of the United States , the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a Black person.

So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton , Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected, not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a Black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good.

There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Why Obama’s Address to Schoolchildren Is Objectionable

2009-09-08T05:20:00.000-04:00

As I read the many editorial columns and articles in support of Obama’s speech, I can see that many writers are very upset and emotional over criticism of Obama’s action. They also are clueless concerning the reasons why his address is unwelcome. They are name-calling. They are not bothering to mention, much less rebut, the reasoned objections of people like me.

I can at least articulate my reasons for objecting.

Such a speech blurs or crosses several boundaries that I believe there are good reasons to have in place.

The President’s constitutional powers are explicit. They include the "executive Power." They include being "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" and a few more listed in the Constitution, including preserving and protecting the Constitution. They do not include addressing schoolchildren.

If the President were to live up to his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, he would request that Congress repeal all its laws regarding education. Section 8 of Article I lists the powers of Congress. Education is not on that list. So when the President addresses schoolchildren, he breaks his oath in several ways. He does not have that power, and he affirms and solidifies a power assumed by Congress that Congress does not have. The President is failing in his sworn duty. Those who think that the President’s speech is helpfully teaching civics are mistaken. His speech is conveying and confirming anti-civics and anti-Constitutional lessons.

The President is a political leader. He is not in office to be an educator. His duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include educating children. By the same token, the President is not the parent of all these children. He is not their teacher. He is not their religious leader. The reason for these boundaries is so that political figures do not use their power and influence to dominate our social lives.

It is a special danger to liberty and society when national powers are developed. These are powers in which the national leadership directly controls or influences individual citizens, while bypassing or circumventing other local sources of governance and influence such as parents, families, churches, schools, and local governments.

An Obama address to schoolchildren is an instance of the further development of national power and influence. It breaks new ground in the influence of State over society. Public education already is under the influence of objectionable forces, but this establishes a new precedent that can be extended. If one political leader addresses youth, other leaders are more likely to address youth. The content of their speeches can be enlarged. Their influence can be enlarged. Government will be given more play and support than it already has. Such a speech is inescapably political. Such a precedent can eventually lead to further dangerous developments, such as a Presidential Youth or an Obama Youth.

The President is a politician. Any address he might make, no matter how nonpartisan it may seem, is bound to be political. It cannot be neutral. The very fact that he is President and making such a speech will be taken in by school children. He will be conveying his authority to these children, with the blessings of their parents and school teachers. They will be taught by the speech itself, regardless of its content, to look to the national government in matters relating to their lives. After all, is he not addressing them about very personal and civic matters? His speech is necessarily a political act.

The President is the leader of a particular political party, so that the very fact that he is a Democrat who is President and making such a speech influences his listeners. Children grow up to be voting adults.

In any speech, what the President says lies beyond the control of those who allow that speech to enter the classroom. The teachers have control over the subsequent discussion, if they choose to have it. But the President will already have made his impact. Children do not fully possess the capacities to judge political matters.

Will the opposition party demand equal time? Do we want politicians routinely competing with one another for the attention of and influence over children?

The President commands the airwaves. This is a dangerous and influential power when used with adults. Allowing this power to be extended to communication with every child in the country is even more dangerous.

School districts can opt out of the speech. In some districts, children may be allowed to opt out of the speech. These options are good ones. But they do not alter the reasons outlined above for objecting to a president making speeches in schools.

I’d like to add that I have seldom read stronger words in newspapers directed against those who object to Obama’s speechmaking to children. They are being called crackpots. They are being accused of demonizing the President. They are being accused of McCarthyism. They are being accused of being racist, completely insane, and members of the right-wing lunatic fringe.

These attacks are not called for. There are very good reasons to object to Obama’s speech. I’ll sum up the ones that bother me. There are no doubt others, but I have made no attempt to research them and find out what others are thinking on this matter.

1. The speech is beyond the President’s constitutional powers.
2. The President is supporting a national role in education, which also is unconstitutional.
3. The President is not supporting his oath of office, so he is conveying an anti-constitutional message to children.
4. The President is crossing a boundary between the political and social spheres. That boundary is in place in order to control government power and maintain a healthy free society.
5. The President is augmenting national power and influence.
6. The President is starting a new precedent that has dangerous implications.
7. The President’s speech cannot possibly be non-political. The very act itself is politically in furtherance of government and an enhanced government role.
8. The President also leads his party, and that fact may influence children.
9. The President may have an undue influence over children due to his position and power.
10. Will fairness considerations lead to equal time for opposition leaders?
11. Presidential access to communications is dangerous enough without extending it to youth.

Link

The Federal Reserve

2009-09-06T11:30:00.001-04:00

Chickens & Cows

2009-09-02T13:11:00.001-04:00

The House of Representatives recently passed funding for a new federal mandate that threatens to put thousands of small farmers and ranchers out of business. The National Animal Identification System, known as NAIS, is an expensive and unnecessary federal program that requires owners of livestock – cattle, dairy, poultry, and even horses – to tag animals with electronic tracking devices. The intrusive monitoring system amounts to nothing more than a tax on livestock owners, allowing the federal government access to detailed information about their private property.
In typical Washington-speak, NAIS is “voluntary” – provided USDA bureaucrats are satisfied with the level of cooperation. Trust me, NAIS will be mandatory within a few years. When was the last time a new federal program did not expand once implemented?
As usual, Congress is spending millions of dollars creating a complex non-solution to a very simple problem. NAIS will cost taxpayers at least $33 million for starters.
Agribusiness giants support NAIS, because they want the federal government to create a livestock database and provide free industry data. But small and independent livestock owners face a costly mandate if NAIS becomes law.
Larger livestock operations will be able to tag whole groups of animals with one ID device. Smaller ranchers and farmers, however, will be forced to tag each individual animal, at a cost of anywhere from $3 to $20 per head. And NAIS applies to anyone with a single horse, pig, chicken, or goat in the backyard – no exceptions. NAIS applies to children in 4-H or FFA. Once NAIS becomes mandatory, any failure to report and tag an animal subjects the owner to $1,000 per day fines.
NAIS also forces livestock owners to comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations. These farmers and ranchers literally will be paying for an assault on their property and privacy rights, as NAIS empowers federal agents to enter and seize property without a warrant – a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.
NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place, and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won’t help find the sources of disease.
More than anything, NAIS places our family farmers and ranchers at an economic disadvantage against agribusiness and overseas competition. As dairy farmer and rancher Bob Parker stated, NAIS is “too intrusive, too costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.”
NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights. It’s exactly the kind of federal program every conservative, civil libertarian, animal lover, businessman, farmer, and rancher should oppose. The House has already acted, but there’s still time to tell the Senate to dump NAIS. Please call your Senators and tell them you oppose spending even one dime on the NAIS program in the 2007 agriculture appropriations bill.
May 30, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

link
I’ll Give Up My Chicken When They Pry It From My Cold Dead Hands

Brush off your philosphy hat and ponder this

2009-09-02T13:08:00.001-04:00

The Pathetic Argument for Prohibiting Drunk Driving
by Mark R. Crovelliby Mark R. CrovelliRecently by Mark R. Crovelli: What This Country Needs Is a 'Cash for Clunkers' Program for the Housing Sector

For people who have grown accustomed to having the government monitor, regulate and enforce every facet of their miserable lives, it can be very difficult for them to conceive of the idea of legalizing drunk driving without at the same time picturing in their heads mangled cars, dead babies, and carnage generally. They have been told year after year by the government that created and enforces these laws, that drunk driving is one of the very worst crimes a man can commit, and that, were it not for the government’s ruthless pursuit of these dangerous criminals, there would indeed be unchecked slaughter in the streets.
Any arguments to the contrary, claiming that we could reduce both the incidence and danger of drunk driving by legalizing it, appear completely absurd to these people. They dismiss these arguments out of hand because they have adopted the government’s ridiculous conception of the drunk-driving issue, which looks something like this:
A) Drunk drivers are dangerous, and can kill other drivers
B) The government has outlawed drunk driving, and punishes drunk driving ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drunk driving
It does not take a professor of logic, however, to see that this type of argument is fallacious. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises. We are not entitled to conclude that the government is successfully reducing either the incidence or the danger of drunk driving, just because they have prohibited it and are mercilessly punishing violators. It could be the case that the government’s prohibitions and punishments themselves are actually exacerbating the problem rather than ameliorating it.
The preceding point is exceedingly important, and is worth emphasizing with an analogous example from the so-called "War on Drugs." The federal government takes an analogous position with regard to drug trafficking and consumption, after all. The claim has always been that all the prohibitions and brutal punishments do reduce drug production and consumption (otherwise, what would be the point of the "war"?). Spokesmen for the drug warriors periodically appear in the news claiming that they have just busted a behemoth cocaine or marijuana smuggling ring, and that the bust will be a major blow to drug pushers and consumers. We all know what happens in the real world of drug production once the government cracks down on drugs in some way, however: the market participants adjust to the increased pressure by shifting their base of operation (e.g., from peaceful Caribbean beaches to the blood-drenched calles of Mexico), switching to more concentrated and dangerous drugs to produce and sell to avoid getting caught (e.g., switching from marijuana to cocaine and heroin), and the more vicious risk-takers among the drug producers take market share away from those who fear prison and God if they, say, cut off a police chief’s head.
Needless to say, the mere fact that the government has prohibited certain drugs, and has gone so far as to wage "war" against them, is insufficient to establish that the government is truly reducing drug consumption or production. If anything, the government’s prohibition of and "war" on drugs has itself caused drugs to become more potent, has created a drug gulag system in the United States (that is, ironically, itself rife with drugs) and a mafia state in Mexico – and yet has not reduced anyone’s ability to purchase coke, pot and meth in the slightest degree.
With regard to the drug "war," and all of its obvious failures and disasters, no one with half a brain would think of making an argument claiming that the government is actually reducing drug consumption, just because they have made them illegal and ruthlessly punish offenders. No one would offer an argument, like the one above, claiming:
A) Drug addicts are dangerous, and can kill or hurt themselves and others
B) The government has outlawed consuming or selling drugs, and punishes consumers and sellers ruthlessly
Ergo, C) The government’s prohibition and punishments do actually reduce the incidence and danger of drugs
No one would make such an argument because the conclusion obviously does not follow from the premises. Some sort of further argument or evidence is necessary to establish that the prohibition is working, or else the argument is question-begging. And, once one takes even the slightest peek at the evidence (i.e., the destruction, death and incarceration that the Drug War has delivered to this continent, and the ease with which anyone can buy virtually any drug in any city, school, or prison on this continent), the argument falls apart immediately.
The same ought to be true for what might be aptly called the "War on Drunk Driving." One ought not to simply assume that the government’s prohibitions and medieval punishments actually work to reduce drunk driving – unless there exist good arguments to that effect.
When one looks at the arguments about the efficacy of the government’s war on drunk driving, however, they all point to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the government’s prohibition and punishments are actually making things worse, rather than better. For example, the government’s prohibitions have created incentives for drunk drivers to drive much more dangerously than they otherwise would. They have resulted in a massive loss of income and freedom for hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Americans who have been arrested, fined and imprisoned for drunk driving without ever hurting anyone. They have created an interlocking structure of incentives that actually encourage drunk driving. They have created a blatantly hypocritical standard for driving on the nation’s roads – with some dangerous drivers let off with a wag of the finger, while others are arrested, fined and incarcerated for doing exactly the same thing; namely, putting other people’s lives at risk. And they have created a police state on the nation’s roads and highways; with Israeli-like random checkpoints, a massive propaganda campaign to intimidate drivers, and mandatory removal of blood from people’s bodies.
The challenge, then, for people who believe in prohibiting drunk driving is to show that these laws do actually reduce drunk driving. Like proponents of drug prohibition, they must be able to show that all of the obvious suffering these laws inflict, billions of lost dollars spent in waging the "war," loss of individual liberties, and counterproductive incentives the laws create have actually reduced drunk driving.
For decades we have been waiting for the drug prohibitionists to give us some similar proof that their favored war has given us some tangible benefits besides millions of men in prison, ever-more potent and dangerous drugs, and a police state run amok. They have failed miserably. So, too, will the proponents of drunk-driving prohibition when we look back on decades of fighting a "war" against our own people, when they have never even hurt any other people.
September 2, 2009
Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Link

Freedom is Always Against the Law

2009-08-31T21:26:00.001-04:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

In Honor of a Wise Man

2009-08-31T20:58:00.008-04:00

Jim Traficant, Ohio lawmaker and Democrat will be released from Federal prison Wednesday. Here is a great speech he delivered on the House floor on March 17, 1993. He went up against the International bankers. Most get killed for this but he just went to Federal prison for his wise words. He was vilified in the media labeled a nut and sent to prison on some pretty ridiculous charges. He was ahead of his time!

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future.

There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. HJR 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments, and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.

All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under the Emergency War Powers.

With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government FOR the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America.

This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R.13955 reads in part:

'The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.'

Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the united states of America that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be 'money' in America. Since gold and silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute.

People traded their coupons as money, or 'currency.' Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not 'money.'

A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States Government, not 'money.' The federal United States Government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money - gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any 'money.'

Most Americans have not been paid any 'money' for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are 'bankrupt,' along with the rest of the country?

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.

Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is a fundamental difference between 'paying' and 'discharging' a debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in Common Law is valid unless it involves an exchange of 'good and valuable consideration."

Unpayable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity, or justice because they have so much wealth already.

Their lust is for power and control.

Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a 'Canon Law Trust' as their model, adding stock and naming it a 'Joint Stock Trust' in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3).

The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums, are the same.

Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the debt was to be paid in Gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever paying the principal.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) 'hypothecated' all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a 'beneficiary' of the trust via his/her birth certificate.

In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their 'subjects,' the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit 'money substitute' it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan.

Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their 'economic slaves,' the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national park forests, birth certificates, and non-profit organizations as collateral against the federal debt.

All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a Sovereign, and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property.

Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank.

We the People have exchanged one master for another.

This has been going on for over eighty years without the 'informed knowledge' of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.

Now it is easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.

Why don't more people own their properties outright?

Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid?

Why does it feel like you are working harder and harder and getting less and less?

We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious liberties, and a way of life.

Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the tyranny to enforce paying it.

America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit, and its reputation for courage, vision, and human rights.

This is an undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most corrupt order.

Wake up, America! Take back your country."--James Traficant

link
Congressional record

never go up against the bankers...

CIA hired Blackwater to infiltrate Ron Paul & Mike Gravel Campaign

2009-08-31T20:42:00.001-04:00

Contrary to what Pelosi says, Americans are not for Obamacare

2009-08-30T09:00:00.009-04:00

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., was confronted by self-described Democrats who accused their representative of lying about health reform and protested, "Why would you try to stuff a health-care plan down our throats in a couple days when the president took six months to pick a dog for his kids?"
Also in Maryland, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., admitted to receiving nearly 1,600 RSVP's for a town hall meeting at a concert hall that only seated only 500. When an estimated 1,500 showed up for the meeting, protesters lined the streets outside with signs and shouts.

In Mehlville, Mo., protesters lined up around the block of the Bernard Middle School gym where Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., had planned a public forum. When hundreds were left standing on the street, they remained outside into the evening. Eventually, a union representative reportedly assaulted one of the protesters, Kenneth Gladney, which lead to six arrests, including a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter. Gladney later appeared in an interview on the Fox News Channel explaining the attack, which drew national attention.

A video posted on YouTube, one of many from around the country, reportedly shows several hundreds standing outside in a stunningly long line, waiting to get into a packed town hall meeting on health care with Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.

Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., has called off further events after a June 22 event he held in Setauket, N.Y., in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry.

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., got an earful, too – especially on the health-care issue.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., heard from a very well-informed veteran – to the enthusiastic applause of those gathered.

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., also heard from the crowd when he made a gaffe by saying the work needs to be done "fast."

The Pittsburgh Tribune review captured video of a town hall with Specter in Kittanning, Pa., reporting that 1,500 showed up to voice their concerns over health care. "I've never seen anything like this," Specter told reporters afterward.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., tried to explain at a town hall that people "don't know" how much they're already paying to cover the uninsured, but his reasoning was drowned out by protesters.

WND reported the story of Mike Sola, a Michigan father who confronted Dingell in a separate meeting over what he feared Obamacare would do to his handicapped adult son. Sola later reported he was threatened at his home, at night, by supporters of the government health-care plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., visited a Denver, Colo., clinic for the homeless to raise support for Obama's health-care plan, only to be met by streets lined with protesters opposed to the measure.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-TX, went out to meet constituents, only to be met with protesters shouting in opposition to the health-care bill, "Just say no!"

At a health-care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., in July, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police.

Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla.

Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were "refused an opportunity" to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello, D-Va., a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., was chased by a crowd saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the wake of vocal town hall protests covered by the press, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., attempted to ban news cameras from his public forum on health care reform, but eventually relented and allowed the coverage.

A handful of New York's congressmen, including Democrats Brian Higgins and Louise Slaughter and Republican Chris Lee, have shunned the town hall meetings altogether, opting instead for telephone meetings or no meetings at all.

Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Mich., also sought to dodge boisterous health-care reform critics by holding a teleconference forum, rather than a public town hall meeting. The decision didn't stop protesters on both sides of the debate rallying outside the lawmaker's office.

The constituents of Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., unable to access their representative through a town hall meeting, created a video charging that Tanner has met with Michael Moore and Fidel Castro, "But he won't meet his constituents in the 8th District to talk about health care."

Meanwhile, pre-written questions from participants with track records of campaigning and organizing for Obama have led some to believe the president has been stacking his own town halls with "plants." The practice, some allege, may also be in use at other, purportedly open public forums.

In Lorain County, Representative Sutton, turned a voter away because she did not support the huge health care spending bill. Then to avoid protest she staged a call with 9 constituents, six of which were against the bill. She also claimed she read the over 1,000 page bill. She may be the only Representative who has read it. I'm going to guess she skimmed it at best.

In a Town hall meeting in Tampa Florida, Kathy Castor was drowned out by screams of "you work for us" and "hear our voice". She had a voters beaten upa nd didn't take any questions, but left the meeting.

History in America

2009-08-30T06:43:00.007-04:00

The Socialist Party candidate for President of the US, Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.

They didn't resonate in the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt, in the name of ending the Depression, exceeded all constitutional authority by approving new federal assistance programs.

They seemed a bit far-fetched to most of us in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson vastly expanded the welfare state in his failed bid to end poverty in America.

They still didn't connect in the 1970s when Richard Nixon, in a bid to ingratiate himself with Democrats in Congress and stave off an impeachment, greatly increased spending on wealth-redistribution schemes.

And by the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan in power, it seemed this 40-year trend had finally been reversed.

Now comes an even grander proposal by Barack Obama. It's called the Global Poverty Act that would, in the next decade, transfer at least $845 billion of U.S. taxpayer money overseas. Think of Johnson's failed war on poverty going international – directed not by Americans but by the United Nations.

How we could even be debating ideas like this in the 21st century, after all of the climactic failures of socialism around the world, is amazing to me. But we're not really debating them. It seems we're not even capable as a people of debating them, reasoning over them, using our brains to consider them.

Obama has appointed Bernake to the Fed again

2009-08-25T22:39:00.003-04:00

Watch as Senator Sanders asks Bernake to tell him how he spent our 2.2 trillion hard earned tax dollars and Bernake refuses. Obama appointed him again to the Fed and is asking for more power to go to the Fed. Obama and change are not even in the same room.

Mike Roger's on health care

2009-08-25T22:34:00.000-04:00

Bill of Rights

2009-08-22T19:05:00.001-04:00

Common Sense 2009 by Larry Flynt

2009-08-22T18:44:00.001-04:00

The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government.

This was never more obvious than with the Wall Street bailout, whereby the very corporations that caused the collapse of our economy were rewarded with taxpayer dollars. So arrogant, so smug were they that, without a moment's hesitation, they took our money -- yours and mine -- to pay their executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, something they continue doing to this very day. They have no shame. They don't care what you and I think about them. Henry Kissinger refers to us as "useless eaters."

But, you say, we have elected a candidate of change. To which I respond: Do these words of President Obama sound like change?

"A culture of irresponsibility took root, from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street."
There it is. Right there. We are Main Street. We must, according to our president, share the blame. He went on to say: "And a regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th-century economic crisis -- the Great Depression -- was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st-century global economy."

This is nonsense.

The reason Wall Street was able to game the system the way it did -- knowing that they would become rich at the expense of the American people (oh, yes, they most certainly knew that) -- was because the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929.

Congress gutted the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial lending banks from investment banks, and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which allowed for self-regulation with no oversight. The Securities and Exchange Commission subsequently revised its rules to allow for even less oversight -- and we've all seen how well that worked out. To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama's failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Consider what multibillionaire banker David Rockefeller wrote in his 2002 memoirs:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Read Rockefeller's words again. He actually admits to working against the "best interests of the United States."

Need more? Here's what Rockefeller said in 1994 at a U.N. dinner: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order." They're gaming us. Our country has been stolen from us.

Journalist Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, notes that esteemed economist John Kenneth Galbraith laid the 1929 crash at the feet of banking giant Goldman Sachs. Taibbi goes on to say that Goldman Sachs has been behind every other economic downturn as well, including the most recent one. As if that wasn't enough, Goldman Sachs even had a hand in pushing gas prices up to $4 a gallon.

The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had to say about them:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered."

We all know that the first American Revolution officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence. Less well known is that the single strongest motivating factor for revolution was the colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank of England. But how many of you know about the second revolution, referred to by historians as Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and once again the banks were the cause. This time they were putting the screws to America's farmers.

Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts. Like many other farmers of the day, he was being driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an attack on the courts and the local armory. The rebellion itself failed, but a message had been sent: The bankers (and the politicians who supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Perhaps it's time to consider that option once again.

I'm calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let's set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn't effective -- if the politicians ignore us -- we do it again. And again. And again.

The real war is not between the left and the right. It is between the average American and the ruling class. If we come together on this single issue, everything else will resolve itself. It's time we took back our government from those who would make us their slaves.

Link

Reality Folks, It's a Concept We All Need to Embrace!

2009-08-22T18:36:00.001-04:00

It Must Be Nice To Be Queen

2009-08-16T17:06:00.009-04:00

Michele Obama, although not paid anything to be first lady nor does she perform any duties she can attest to the perks of the title. She's hired more than 20 attendants to cater to her every whim.

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “ Michelle Obama

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket. Sickening glut and arrogance. remind me again how this is change?

1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)

2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)

Jocelyn Frye serves as General Counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families in Washington, DC. She directs the National Partnership’s Workplace Fairness Program and, in that capacity, focuses primarily on a wide range of employment and gender discrimination issues, with a particular emphasis on employment barriers facing women of color and low-income women.

Frye has extensive experience working on issues related to equal employment opportunity and workplace fairness. Her work includes monitoring and analyzing the effectiveness of federal equal employment enforcement efforts. She has testified before Congress and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on federal enforcement of employment discrimination laws. Ms. Frye received her undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan in 1985 with a double major in Political Science and English, and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1988. After graduating from law school, she worked as an associate at Crowell & Moring, a Washington, DC law firm, concentrating in the white-collar crime and labor law practice areas. Ms. Frye is a native of Washington, DC, and is involved in a number of community and volunteer activities.

3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)

4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)

5. Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)

6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)David Medina currently works for the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign, a national coalition which promotes increased U.S. investments in development and diplomacy. Mr. Medina previously served as the political director of Senator John Edwards’ presidential campaign and as a legislative representative for the AFL-CIO. David has also served as the Deputy CEO of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, policy director for the Democratic National Committee, and legislative assistant for U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. David received his B.A. from the University of Chicago and M.P.P. from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)

8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)Franny Starkey Sanguin joined the Obama campaign in February of 2007 as the Iowa Trip Director, where she oversaw all principal and surrogate travel in the state. She took a brief absence from the campaign to serve as the Director of the Colorado Convention Center, headquarters for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in her hometown of Denver, Colorado. Prior to the Obama 2008 presidential cycle, Sanguin worked in Minnesota as Director of Scheduling and Advance for Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s successful U.S. Senate campaign and as Communications Director for Terri Bonoff’s campaign for Congress in the3rd District. Sanguin’s experience includes stints as Director of Scheduling and Advance for Howard Dean’s 2003 Iowa Caucus campaign, for Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack’s 2002 reelection campaign and as the Deputy Director of Communications in Vilsack’s administration. Sanguin graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. She is married to Ken Sanguin.

9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)

Trooper Sanders was a White House policy advisor and speechwriter to Tipper Gore, and a policy aide to former Vice President Al Gore. He most recently served as domestic policy advisor at the William J. Clinton Foundation. Trooper has served in a variety of program, communications and leadership positions for leading U.S. and international organizations advancing social progress ranging from the American Constitution Society to The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum. A native of Detroit, Michigan, he has lived in the United Kingdom and, as a Robert Bosch Foundation fellow, Germany. Trooper has an A.B., in Global Political Economy from the University of Michigan and an MSc., in Regulation (Financial and

Commercial) from the London School of Economics. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Forum for Youth Investment and the Northeast Regional Board of Operation HOPE.

10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)
Prior to joining Mrs. Obama’s team, Ebs Burnough served as the Political Director for 1199SEIU in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Ebs has also worked for SEIU as a political analyst and director of operations in the New York office. During the 2004 Presidential Election, Ebs served as the Deputy Communications Director in Missouri, for America Coming Together. In addition, Ebs was the Executive Director of Congressman Jerry Nadler’s Political Action Committee.

11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)

Joe Reinstein has been marketing products, environmental awareness and social justice for 21 years. Among other achievements, Joe helped change perceptions of the United Way by redefining its brand from charity clearinghouse to community impact organization. Before joining the White House Social Secretary staff, Joe was VP Marketing at Medline Industries, the nation's largest privately held manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products. Joe was a founding board member of Cool Globes, a non-profit organization established to raise awareness of global warming and inspire individuals and community leaders to embrace solutions. Launched in Chicago, Cool Globes’ public art exhibit has traveled to San Diego and Washington DC and will appear in Houston, Los Angeles and London in 2009. Joe is also a board member and marketing committee chair of the Anti-Defamation League Midwest Region. Joe and his wife Hannah Higgins are proud parents of Zoe (age 13) and Nathalie (age 9).

12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)Jennifer Goodman served as Michelle Obama’s Director of Scheduling on the Obama campaign and the Obama-Biden Transition Team. Prior to joining the campaign, Jennifer worked for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) for more than five years, serving as Scheduler in his Senate office and Trip Director and Director of Scheduling on his 2007 presidential campaign. She has also worked on the media team for the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton. A native of New Hampshire, Jennifer began her career with the 2002 U.S. Senate campaign of Governor Jeanne Shaheen. She graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in international affairs from the George Washington University.

13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)

14. Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY) Dana M. Lewis came to Washington, DC in 1993 to pursue a career in politics. Hailing from Weston, Connecticut, Ms. Lewis graduated with a Bachelors of Arts degree in Political Science from Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. Ms. Lewis began her career as an intern with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Since then, she has worked for Members of both the House and the Senate, including Representative Bobby Scott, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Senator Barbara Boxer, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Her issue areas of expertise ranged from education, labor, civil rights, and criminal justice policy.

In May 2007, Ms. Lewis was hired by Obama for America to work on the advance team for presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. After the President-elect’s victory in November 2008, Ms. Lewis was hired by the Presidential Inaugural Committee to work on the Congressional Relations team. In January 2009, she will serve as future First Lady Michelle Obama’s personal aide.

15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)

16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY) After graduating from Spelman College, Kristen began her political career working on the leadership staff of former Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Tom Daschle. Kristen then served as Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff to Senator Barack Obama in the United States Senate from 2004-2007. When Senator Obama announced his Presidential Bid, Kristen was tapped by the campaign to relocate to Nevada where she served as the State Scheduler for both Senator and Mrs. Obama, and Surrogate Scheduler for elected officials and celebrities traveling to Nevada on behalf of Senator Obama. When the Nevada caucuses concluded, Kristen joined the National Advance team as a Press Lead, coordinating press logistics for campaign town halls and rallies across the country. Kristen spent the remaining months on the campaign trail as the Body Person/Special Assistant to Michelle Obama where it was her responsibility to take care of all personal needs for Mrs. Obama.

17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY) Tyler was a field organizer in Iowa during the campaign. Tyler Lechtenberg currently serves as Deputy Director of Volunteers for the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Prior to this, he worked on the Obama campaign as a Regional Field Director in Central Iowa for the General Election, proceeded by primary-season stops in Louisville, Kentucky; Youngstown, Ohio; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Marshalltown, Iowa. He spent three years working as an award-winning sports writer for The Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette and has worked as a writer for the Marketing Department at Portland (OR) Community College.

18. Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)

19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)Joe Boswell spent the last year and half working on the Obama Campaign most recently as Regional Field Director on the Campaign for Change in Ohio during the General Election. Joe began on the campaign as a Field Organizer in the Iowa Caucus before going on to organize in Texas, organize youth outreach at Arizona State University, and become a regional director Pennsylvania during the primary election. Before the campaign, Joe worked at Robinson, Lerer, and Montgomery, a strategic communications firm in New York. There he worked closely with the firm's senior management to develop communications strategy and learn about media consulting. Joe attended Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, where he studied government and played rugby. He grew up in Northern California.

20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY) Sally Armbruster has 10 years of experience working in event planning and design. She recently founded a personal assistance and event management company with a special focus in charitable organizations. Sally received a Bachelor of Science in Art from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 2006. Sally hails from Lake Bluff, Illinois.

21. Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)Natalie Bookey – Staff Assistant Natalie currently serves as the Managing Director of the Inaugural Finance Committee at the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Prior to this, she worked on the Obama campaign’s finance team in Chicago. Natalie is a native of Des Moines, Iowa and studied Journalism, Spanish Language and Women’s Studies at George Washington University. After graduating Natalie traveled to South America and returned to the U.S. to work at WGN News in Chicago where she researched, wrote, and edited video for news stories as well as conducted interviews and produced packages for broadcast.

22. Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)

Note most are already employed so they are double dipping while they collect tax dollars.

George Orwell's 1984

2009-08-16T12:58:00.001-04:00

Read the book here

OBAMA IS A CORPORATE MARKETING CREATION

2009-08-16T12:36:00.001-04:00

Ron Paul Documentary

2009-08-16T11:37:00.006-04:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Obama's Health Care Bill Explained

2009-08-14T06:48:00.001-04:00

Part 1

Part 2

Name Calling in America

2009-08-11T11:40:00.013-04:00

The names are flying; Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Marxist and the effect is equal to a punch thrown with a paper fist. Why, because those being called names don't know what these terms mean in the true sense. They view the names as tactics and not what's behind them.

We'll start with the most common name being thrown out today, "Socialist". Obama in his own words said he would like to redistribute the wealth; a very common approach in Socialism. Socialism and Communism have similarities but it is said that Communism is arrived at by force while Socialism is something the people unknowingly usher in at their own demise.

The most common theme for both is that everything is owned by the state. All production is owned and controlled by those in leadership. In America today we are seeing government grow by leaps and bounds while legislating a stake in industry all in the name of economic recovery. The bailouts and the government's ownership in these businesses are a scary example of this trend, but lets put our focus for now on Socialism.

Socialism tries to equalize the class system. Only it never takes into account the class of people who are running things. It's a pseudo equalizer because those put put in charge of the redistribution can't have agendas, can't be controlled by lobbyist or industry. In America no politician like that exists except one lonely Congressman in Texas. Imagine giving the resources of our country to a select few and requiring them to honestly distribute this wealth to everyone fairly. We aren't yet fully a Socialistic society but we are riddled in our every day lives with monopolies that are already taking advantage of the wealth being given to them disappointingly by our politicians. We have only one source for many necessities in our every day life but if given an option we would gladly welcome competition which would usher in lower prices and better customer service. One only needs to talk to their local phone company or gas company to know things are not as they should be.

The promise is to right the class system as long as the masses trust them. In Socialism, property and wealth are owned by the state and then distributed accordingly. In our own government, we can see this system at work in the bailouts. Only the opposite occurred. The richest got the bailouts while the poor paid for them in inflation and higher prices for everything. And so go the promises of Socialism. The wealth is never distributed from the top down. Logically, why would these people in leadership choose us over money? Agenda is the only thing that needs to be looked at. If politicians do the bidding of the rich they get more money, the cycle of corruption is created. And we the free people think we are getting a government we elect and control.

When the bail out bill was presented, so many Americans called their elected officials to say no that not only did the phone switchboards crash but the government websites did as well. It was as as if the people were silent; big business and industry got trillions of dollars of our hard earned money and our elected officials didn't hear a word we said. Our elected officials proved with 100% clarity they are 100% corrupt. And we want to allow them to distribute the wealth of our country? I'm not a betting person but I'll bet we the lonely slaves never see a dime of it.

The richest resources are confiscated and owned by elected leaders and the people are left to share the leftovers. Socialism could work in an environment absent of corruption and greed but because of this, it's more of a fantasy than a reality.

Socialism becomes very attractive to the poor because they see it as a way out of their struggle. They see the unfairness of others having wealth where they do not. And this is the draw to grow the numbers to vote for Socialism. We all saw in the recent election where people were coming on the news and saying I can't wait for Obama to take office so I don't have to pay my mortgage any longer.

This is very telling of the propaganda people are being pulled in with. But the whole element of toil for that wealth is a concept they don't understand. Why should they if they are going to be given something for nothing. They see it more as a lucky game of cards rather than achievement from hard work. They see themselves getting an equal share of the wealth although they did nothing to achieve it. It becomes a disconnect for the concept of working hard to be successful. Truly this concept can only be learned by doing. And people have been made poor by the monetary policies in America. The Federal Reserve has been robbing the American people since 1913. The more money they print, the less the dollars in our pocket are worth until we are forced to go on government assistance. These voters were created out of dependency on their government, not freedom liberty or an ideology.

Socialist have an agenda when elected, to promise the people a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor only these leaders are backed by the rich. The only transfer that ever occurs is from the poor to the wealthy. Those in charge of equalizing are put in a position to be bought by the highest bidder for their ability to make things equal. But equal is relative to who is paying you the most money.

The election of Obama was at a tipping point. He's a Socialist, his change although never stated out right, is to bring in Socialism. The "powers that be" wagered that enough people in America were getting government handouts to support more welfare that the election would be a cinch. They gambled correctly. Everything he has said is the opposite of everything he has done. He's given more corporate welfare than any president in the history of America. And the sad part is his followers keep thinking he's going to also bail them out since he's bailing folks out only that bailout will never come.

Socialism isn't about making people equal, it's about power. Socialism has one function; to use the concept of equality to get into power. Once the people have given you permission to divvy things up you give everything to the people who paid for your campaign. Everything goes to the richest because they ran your ads, and they paid for your t-shirts and your logos and wrote your speeches about change. Once elected it's too late for citizens to do anything. He is their leader, they are stuck with the damage he does. And most will defend the insanity rather than realizing and admitting they were duped. Some never even realize it because they like their ignorant bliss. They don't want to believe their government would harm them or doesn't work for them.

Just one example of who Obama's in bed with and it ain't us.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)

Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

In return, Big Pharma isn't just supporting universal health care. It's also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.

Folks you are getting screwed and not even so much as a kiss.

The Spirit of America

2009-08-10T07:11:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nl95T_ND_Q&feature=player_embedded

Are You Tied Down?

2009-08-09T10:46:00.001-04:00

Obama Health Care Plan will ration care for undesirables

2009-08-02T18:25:00.009-04:00

Ezekiel Emanuel, is a health policy adviser to Obama and architect of the ObamaCare health plan.

Emmanuel says:
"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change"

"Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society."

The oath

I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, recently writes:

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. … When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Under this system, patients would receive scarce care according to the graph shown below.

Gates arrest more of a Constitutional issue than a racial one.

2009-08-02T16:38:00.002-04:00

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

12,000 American Children to be guinea pigs

2009-07-28T21:21:00.002-04:00

Untested on children to find out how the drug will react. This is so wrong on many levels.

Novel Virus, hybrid virus; gene splicing, man made flu.

Choices

2009-07-24T06:10:00.003-04:00

Everything we see on the media today is controlled so the two presidential choices were just puppets for the same master. And people voted on what they saw not on who was best suited. Both choices voted for the banker bailouts before they were even elected. This is amazing because the American people were against the bailouts but then like mindless idiots turned around and voted for one or the other anyway. The only recourse we have is at the polls. To make change we have to change who represents us. Go with people who won't vote on bailouts.

Congress today has no term limits. The numbers don't lie. When a career politician has over 20 years you can be sure he or she is well acquainted with lobbyist and get paid much much more than their salaries by industry and special interest groups to do whatever they want. New Congress members have to get to know these people, they aren't entrenched in the power structure yet, they aren't tainted.

The easiest thing Americans can do is not allow Congress members to be voted in ever more than once. We would end Congressional corrupting in one election cycle and return honor to Washington. Since Congress won't legislate their own term limits we have to force term limits on them. We have to respond in kind at the polls when they don't do what we want them to.

I've never seen such an outpouring of citizens contacting senators and congress people on the things they are currently voting on. We are literally crashing their websites and switch boards to tell them how they should be voting, yet these people vote exactly how we are telling them not to because they no longer care or even want to give the illusion they care. It isn't about us it's about power and money and we don't figure into that equation.

When you see that smiling face saying please vote for me look past the name at the years of experience, if it's more than two or four years look at this as a terrible thing for America. In this case experience is a bad thing because it means they've gotten really good at corruption. In addition its harder for a new person to go up against an established person because people don't like change but change is the only thing that can restore this country.

Imagine their faces when they don't win anymore. Or they don't do what we want and they don't win as a result. Guess what, they know there are consequences to their actions. That the American people are not going to take their blatant abuse and disrespect of the very people who put them there.

We all have to do it. We all have to decide never to reelect any of them. At least for a few cycles and once we have purged the crooks we need to get people in who will pass a law to term limit Congress and make lobbyist illegal and the obvious conflict of interest they are.

Hillary Clinton while campaigning said this,

Lobbyist have families... I saw it and stood in shock. Lobbyist sure have jobs, but its what's behind the lobbyist, huge corporations or special interests who pay her large sums of money to do what they ask. Whens the last time a huge corporation wanted her to pass a law that favored consumers? Do you know why you have only one electric company to choose from, or one gas company or one phone company? How in America did everything grow to monopolies which we know is not good for consumers. One company means they don't give a shit about service or price because you can't go anywhere to get that same service you are trapped using the only choice you have. lobbyist paid dearly to be the monopoly. They did it in the name of deregulation and then regulation by our government as if they do anything to protect or benefit us.

If you have two restaurants and one is great and the other is average. We as consumers can decide which has better prices and service. We dictate these businesses survival. We also can influence price when we have choices. With only one choice, we are doomed to high prices and horrible service. And how about the people clapping in this video? Are they idiots? Do they listen to what she says or are they just clapping because they think whatever she says is good?

Clinton Admits Council on Foreign Relations Runs the Country

2009-07-19T12:06:00.004-04:00

Transcript:

Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

The country was founded and our people under the impression we decide what our government does. We the People, government of the people. Clinton admits these world powers actually "tell us what to do".

Richard just gave what could be described as a mini-version of my remarks in talking about the issues that confront us. But I look out at this audience filled with not only many friends and colleagues, but people who have served in prior administrations. And so there is never a time when the in-box is not full.

Shortly before I started at the State Department, a former Secretary of State called me with this advice: Don’t try to do too much. And it seemed like a wise admonition, if only it were possible. But the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. All of these challenges affect America’s security and prosperity, and they all threaten global stability and progress.

Clinton is a globalist, this is a philosophy that involves world dominance by a select few. The founders of this country envisioned America with her own rules and a nation of people who governed themselves. A globalist agenda would mean we would be policing the world and forcing ideology of one world government by a select few of elitists running the world. Guaranteed the US Constitution would be the first to go.

But they are not reason to despair about the future. The same forces that compound our problems – economic interdependence, open borders, and the speedy movement of information, capital, goods, services and people – are also part of the solution. And with more states facing common challenges, we have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America’s mission in the world today.

A globalist view of bringing the world in line with a super power government controlling everything.

Now, some see the rise of other nations and our economic troubles here at home as signs that American power has waned. Others simply don’t trust us to lead; they view America as an unaccountable power, too quick to impose its will at the expense of their interests and our principles. But they are wrong.

The question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will lead in the 21st century. Rigid ideologies and old formulas don’t apply. We need a new mindset about how America will use its power to safeguard our nation, expand shared prosperity, and help more people in more places live up to their God-given potential.

America can only remain free if we keep to the plan of a government for the people by the people. A Constitution that governs America, protects American borders and keeps to the policy of our nation only in ensuring what is best for us. Our resources are barely enough to govern our nation. To branch out and police the world through corruption and destruction of world people is not the answer.

President Obama has led us to think outside the usual boundaries. He has launched a new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect. Going forward, capitalizing on America’s unique strengths, we must advance those interests through partnership, and promote universal values through the power of our example and the empowerment of people. In this way, we can forge the global consensus required to defeat the threats, manage the dangers, and seize the opportunities of the 21st century. America will always be a world leader as long as we remain true to our ideals and embrace strategies that match the times. So we will exercise American leadership to build partnerships and solve problems that no nation can solve on its own, and we will pursue policies to mobilize more partners and deliver results.

She speaks of the New World Order, and she's is saying Obama will bring it in.

First, though, let me say that while the ideas that shape our foreign policy are critically important, this, for me, is not simply an intellectual exercise. For over 16 years, I’ve had the chance, the privilege, really, to represent our country overseas as First Lady, as a senator, and now as Secretary of State. I’ve seen the bellies of starving children, girls sold into human trafficking, men dying of treatable diseases, women denied the right to own property or vote, and young people without schooling or jobs gripped by a sense of futility about their futures.

She uses our sympathies to say we must feed the world. Yet we can't afford to do this. And it isn't about feeding the world its about or Country getting control of poorer countries and stealing their resources while we fund their corrupt governments in exchange for their enslavement. This is so Un-American. Would we want a nation like China to do this to us? Do the people in Africa see the donations of food or are they used to pay off cartels who support government corruption.

I’ve also seen how hope, hard work, and ingenuity can overcome the longest of odds. And for almost 36 years, I have worked as an advocate for children, women and families here at home. I’ve traveled across our country listening to everyday concerns of our citizens. I’ve met parents struggling to keep their jobs, pay their mortgages, cover their children’s college tuitions, and afford healthcare.

And all that I have done and seen has convinced me that our foreign policy must produce results for people – the laid-off auto worker in Detroit whose future will depend on global economic recovery; the farmer or small business owner in the developing world whose lack of opportunity can drive political instability and economic stagnation; the families whose loved ones are risking their lives for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere; children in every land who deserve a brighter future. These are the people – hundreds of millions of them here in America and billions around the world – whose lives and experiences, hopes and dreams, must inform the decisions we take and the actions that follow. And these are the people who inspire me and my colleagues and the work that we try to do every day.

She says global economic recovery which is really scary. Our economy being run by some world leader. Does this not sound scary enough but coming from our secretary of state as if its a good thing rather than a very evil sinister plan to give our finical lives to a few elite rich guys who could care less if we survive.

In approaching our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once. But even as we are forced to multi-task – a very gender-related term (laughter) – we must have priorities, which President Obama has outlined in speeches from Prague to Cairo, from Moscow to Accra. We want to reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat. We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world. We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. We want to seek global economic recovery and growth by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs. We want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future. We want to support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights and deliver results for their people. And we intend to stand up for human rights everywhere.

The scare tactics she employs here are just rhetoric. There is no boogie man. He's an incarnation of our leaders who want us to feel the world isn't safe and thus we must all join together against a common evil.

Liberty, democracy, justice and opportunity underlie our priorities. Some accuse us of using these ideals to justify actions that contradict their very meaning. Others say we are too often condescending and imperialistic, seeking only to expand our power at the expense of others. And yes, these perceptions have fed anti-Americanism, but they do not reflect who we are. No doubt we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is temporary. It’s kind of like my elbow – it’s getting better every day. (Laughter.)

We are a Republic form of government not a democracy. Chills me to the bone to hear this out of this woman's mouth. She doesn't know our form of government? How can that be. "Condescending and Imperialistic seeking to expand our power at the expense of others". These are the only truths this woman spoke in her whole speech.

Whether in Latin America or Lebanon, Iran or Liberia, those who are inspired by democracy, who understand that democracy is about more than just elections – that it must also protect minority rights and press freedom, develop strong, competent and independent judiciaries, legislatures and executive agencies, and commit for democracy to deliver results – these are the people who will find that Americans are their friends, not adversaries. As President Obama made clear last week in Ghana, this Administration will stand for accountable and transparent governance, and support those who work to build democratic institutions wherever they live.

Again with the Democracy, we are a Republic we are ruled by the US Constitution. Saying we are a Democracy doesn't change our form of government or negate our founding document. This woman is a traitor to the US Constitution. We are fighting for Democracy when we ourselves are not. Insanity!

Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th century concert of powers, or a 20th century balance of power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism.

She is basically saying the Republic and US Constitution are dead, the globalist agenda and one world government's time has come.

Today, we must acknowledge two inescapable facts that define our world: First, no nation can meet the world’s challenges alone. The issues are too complex. Too many players are competing for influence, from rising powers to corporations to criminal cartels; from NGOs to al-Qaida; from state-controlled media to individuals using Twitter.

global government, global government, global government...

Second, most nations worry about the same global threats, from non-proliferation to fighting disease to counterterrorism, but also face very real obstacles – for reasons of history, geography, ideology, and inertia. They face these obstacles and they stand in the way of turning commonality of interest into common action.

global government, global government, global government...

So these two facts demand a different global architecture – one in which states have clear incentives to cooperate and live up to their responsibilities, as well as strong disincentives to sit on the sidelines or sow discord and division.

global government, global government, global government...

So we will exercise American leadership to overcome what foreign policy experts at places like the Council call “collective action problems” and what I call obstacles to cooperation. For just as no nation can meet these challenges alone, no challenge can be met without America.

global government, global government, global government...

And here’s how we’ll do it: We’ll work through existing institutions and reform them. But we’ll go further. We’ll use our power to convene, our ability to connect countries around the world, and sound foreign policy strategies to create partnerships aimed at solving problems. We’ll go beyond states to create opportunities for non-state actors and individuals to contribute to solutions.

global government, global government, global government...

We believe this approach will advance our interests by uniting diverse partners around common concerns. It will make it more difficult for others to abdicate their responsibilities or abuse their power, but will offer a place at the table to any nation, group, or citizen willing to shoulder a fair share of the burden. In short, we will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.

global government, global government, global government...

Now, we know this approach is not a panacea. We will remain clear-eyed about our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. And some will actively seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships can become power coalitions to constrain or deter those negative actions.

global government, global government, global government, global policing the world, not let governments seek their own direction. Don't we sound like England?...

And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. Our willingness to talk is not a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends, our interests, and above all, our people vigorously and when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek nor is it a threat; it is a promise to all Americans.

The American bully as entered the room.

Building the architecture of global cooperation requires us to devise the right policies and use the right tools. I speak often of smart power because it is so central to our thinking and our decision-making. It means the intelligent use of all means at our disposal, including our ability to convene and connect. It means our economic and military strength; our capacity for entrepreneurship and innovation; and the ability and credibility of our new President and his team. It also means the application of old-fashioned common sense in policymaking. It’s a blend of principle and pragmatism.

Smart power translates into specific policy approaches in five areas. First, we intend to update and create vehicles for cooperation with our partners; second, we will pursue principled engagement with those who disagree with us; third, we will elevate development as a core pillar of American power; fourth, we will integrate civilian and military action in conflict areas; and fifth, we will leverage key sources of American power, including our economic strength and the power of our example.

Our first approach is to build these stronger mechanisms of cooperation with our historic allies, with emerging powers, and with multilateral institutions, and to pursue that cooperation in, as I said, a pragmatic and principled way. We don’t see those as in opposition, but as complementary.

We have started by reinvigorating our bedrock alliances, which did fray in recent years. In Europe, that means improved bilateral relationships, a more productive partnership with the European Union, and a revitalized NATO. I believe NATO is the greatest alliance in history. But it was built for the Cold War. The new NATO is a democratic community of nearly a billion people stretching from the Baltics in the East to Alaska in the West. We’re working to update its strategic concept so that it is as effective in this century as it was in the last. At the same time, we are working with our key treaty allies Japan and Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines and other partners to strengthen our bilateral relationships as well as trans-Pacific institutions. We are both a trans-Atlantic and a trans-Pacific nation.

We will also put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers – China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa – to be full partners in tackling the global agenda. I want to underscore the importance of this task, and my personal commitment to it. These states are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and advancing our priorities – nonproliferation, counterterrorism, economic growth, climate change, among others. With these states, we will stand firm on our principles even as we seek common ground.

This week, I will travel to India, where External Affairs Minister Krishna and I will lay out a broad-based agenda that calls for a whole-of-government approach to our bilateral relationship. Later this month, Secretary Geithner and I will jointly lead our new strategic and economic dialogue with China. It will cover not just economic issues, but the range of strategic challenges we face together. In the fall, I will travel to Russia to advance the bi-national presidential commission that Foreign Minister Lavrov and I will co-chair.

The fact of these and other meetings does not guarantee results, but they set in motion processes and relationships that will widen our avenues of cooperation and narrow the areas of disagreement without illusion. We know that progress will not likely come quickly, or without bumps in the road, but we are determined to begin and stay on this path.

Now our global and regional institutions were built for a world that has been transformed, so they too must be transformed and reformed. As the President said following the recent G-8 meeting in Italy, we are seeking institutions that “combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.” From the UN to the World Bank, from the IMF to the G-8 and the G-20, from the OAS and the Summit of the Americas to ASEAN and APEC – all of these and other institutions have a role to play, but their continued vitality and relevance depend on their legitimacy and representativeness, and the ability of their members to act swiftly and responsibly when problems arise.

We also will reach out beyond governments, because we believe partnerships with people play a critical role in our 21st century statecraft. President Obama’s Cairo speech is a powerful example of communicating directly with people from the bottom up. And we are following up with a comprehensive agenda of educational exchanges, outreach, and entrepreneurial ventures. In every country I visit, I look for opportunities to bolster civil society and engage with citizens, whether at a town hall in Baghdad – a first in that country; or appearing on local popular television shows that reach a wide and young audience; or meeting with democracy activists, war widows, or students.

I have appointed special envoys to focus on a number of specific challenges, including the first Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues and an ambassador to build new public-private partnerships and to engage Diaspora communities in the United States to increase opportunities in their native lands. And we are working at the State Department to ensure that our government is using the most innovative technologies not only to speak and listen across borders, not only to keep technologies up and going, but to widen opportunities especially for those who are too often left on the margins. We’re taking these steps because reaching out directly to people will encourage them to embrace cooperation with us, making our partnerships with their governments and with them stronger and more durable.

We’ve also begun to adopt a more flexible and pragmatic posture with our partners. We won’t agree on every issue. Standing firm on our principles shouldn’t prevent us from working together where we can. So we will not tell our partners to take it or leave it, nor will we insist that they’re either with us or against us. In today’s world, that’s global malpractice.

Our diplomacy regarding North Korea is a case in point. We have invested a significant amount of diplomatic resources to achieve Security Council consensus in response to North Korea’s provocative actions. I spoke numerous times to my counterparts in Japan, South Korea, Russia and China, drawing out their concerns, making our principles and redlines clear, and seeking a path forward. The short-term results were two unanimous Security Council resolutions with real teeth and consequences for North Korea, and then the follow-on active involvement of China, Russia, and India with us in persuading others to comply with the resolutions. The long-term result, we believe, will be a tougher joint effort toward the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

All the while American jobs have been given to these countries on a platter.

Cultivating these partnerships and their full range takes time and patience. It also takes persistence. That doesn’t mean procrastinating on urgent issues. Nor is it a justification for delaying efforts that may take years to bear fruit. In one of my favorite observations, Max Weber said, “Politics is the long and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective.” Perspective dictates passion and patience. And of course, passion keeps us from not [sic] finding excuses to do nothing.

Now I’m well aware that time alone does not heal all wounds; consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That’s why we wasted no time in starting an intensive effort on day one to realize the rights of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace and security in two states, which is in America’s interests and the world’s. We’ve been working with the Israelis to deal with the issue of settlements, to ease the living conditions of Palestinians, and create circumstances that can lead to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. For the last few decades, American administrations have held consistent positions on the settlement issue. And while we expect action from Israel, we recognize that these decisions are politically challenging.

And we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.

And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict.

Our second policy approach is to lead with diplomacy, even in the cases of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We believe that doing so advances our interests and puts us in a better position to lead with our other partners. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of naiveté or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. I believe that is wrong. As long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table. Negotiations can provide insight into regimes’ calculations and the possibility – even if it seems remote – that a regime will eventually alter its behavior in exchange for the benefits of acceptance into the international community. Libya is one such example. Exhausting the option for dialogue is also more likely to make our partners more willing to exert pressure should persuasion fail.

With this in mind, I want to say a few words about Iran. We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, and then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign journalists and nationals, and expelling them, and cutting off access to technology. As we and our G-8 partners have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable.

We know very well what we inherited with Iran, because we deal with that inheritance every day. We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.

Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue with the Islamic Republic will guarantee success of any kind, and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following the election. But we also understand the importance of offering to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice: whether to join the international community as a responsible member or to continue down a path to further isolation.

Notice she cleverly puts "Republic" after Islamic to say it's a bad thing. While we are also a Republicc and then making Democracy sound like it's the good guys, even though we are not a Democracy. Trying to change who we are with propaganda.

Direct talks provide the best vehicle for presenting and explaining that choice. That is why we offered Iran’s leaders an unmistakable opportunity: Iran does not have a right to nuclear military capacity, and we’re determined to prevent that. But it does have a right to civil nuclear power if it reestablishes the confidence of the international community that it will use its programs exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.

Our third policy approach, and a personal priority for me as Secretary, is to elevate and integrate development as a core pillar of American power. We advance our security, our prosperity, and our values by improving the material conditions of people’s lives around the world. These efforts also lay the groundwork for greater global cooperation, by building the capacity of new partners and tackling shared problems from the ground up.

A central purpose of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review that I announced last week is to explore how to effectively design, fund, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. Let’s face it. We have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to development than almost any other advanced country. And too little of what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. Too much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here in America to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. I am committed to more partnerships with NGOs, but I want more of our tax dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results.

As we seek more agile, effective, and creative partnerships for development, we will focus on country-driven solutions, such as those we are launching with Haiti on recovery and sustainable development, and with African states on global hunger. These initiatives must not be designed to help countries scrape by – they are a tool to help countries stand on their own.

What about the country you are in lady? Americans are struggling to survive. Global hunger is not our problem unless we can overcome it in our own country. More of our tax dollars spent out of the country without our permission. If want to give to organizations that feed other nations that's our choice not our leaderships.

Our development agenda will also focus on women as drivers of economic growth and social stability. Women have long comprised the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, and underfed. They are also the bulk of the world’s poor. The global recession has had a disproportionate effect on women and girls, which in turn has repercussions for families, communities, and even regions. Until women around the world are accorded their rights – and afforded the opportunities of education, health care, and gainful employment – global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling.

Our fourth approach is to ensure that our civilian and military efforts operate in a coordinated and complementary fashion where we are engaged in conflict. This is the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we are integrating our efforts with international partners.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country. Yet Americans often ask, why do we ask our young men and women to risk their lives in Afghanistan when al-Qaida’s leadership is in neighboring Pakistan? And that question deserves a good answer: We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al-Qaida and depends on it for support, sometimes coordinating activities. In other words, to eliminate al-Qaida, we must also fight the Taliban.

Ah, the set up for a never ending war. The boogie man again, who happens to be Arab. Perpetual war that makes her friends rich and us poor.

Now, we understand that not all those who fight with the Taliban support al-Qaida, or believe in the extremist policies the Taliban pursued when in power. And today we and our Afghan allies stand ready to welcome anyone supporting the Taliban who renounces al-Qaida, lays down their arms, and is willing to participate in the free and open society that is enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.

To achieve our goals, President Obama is sending an additional 17,000 troops and 4,000 military trainers to Afghanistan. Equally important, we are sending hundreds of direct hire American civilians to lead a new effort to strengthen the Afghan Government, help rebuild the once-vibrant agricultural sector, create jobs, encourage the rule of law, expand opportunities for women, and train the Afghan police. No one should doubt our commitment to Afghanistan and its people. But it is the Afghan people themselves who will determine their own future.

As we proceed, we must not forget that success in Afghanistan also requires close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this fall. Pakistan is itself under intense pressure from extremist groups. Trilateral cooperation among Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States has built confidence and yielded progress on a number of policy fronts. Our national security, as well as the future of Afghanistan, depends on a stable, democratic, and economically viable Pakistan. And we applaud the new Pakistani determination to deal with the militants who threaten their democracy and our shared security.

In Iraq, we are bolstering our diplomacy and development programs while we implement a responsible withdrawal of our troops. Last month our combat troops successfully redeployed from towns and cities. Our principal focus is now shifting from security issues to civilian efforts that promote Iraqi capacity – supporting the work of the Iraqi ministries and aiding in their efforts to achieve national unity. And we are developing a long-term economic and political relationship with Iraq as outlined by the US-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement. This Agreement forms the basis of our future cooperation with Iraq and the Iraqi people, and I look forward to discussing it and its implementation with Prime Minister Maliki when he comes to Washington next week.

Our fifth approach is to shore up traditional sources of our influence, including economic strength and the power of our example. We renewed our own values by prohibiting torture and beginning to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. And we have been straightforward about our own measure of responsibility for problems like drug trafficking in Mexico and global climate change. When I acknowledged the obvious about our role in Mexico’s current conflict with narco-traffickers, some were critical. But they’re missing the point. Our capacity to take responsibility, and our willingness to change, to do the right thing, are themselves hallmarks of our greatness as a nation and strategic assets that can help us forge coalitions in the service of our interests.

That is certainly true when it comes to key priorities like nonproliferation and climate change. President Obama is committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons, including working with the Senate to ratify the follow-on START agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking on greater responsibility within the Non Proliferation Treaty Framework and convening the world’s leaders here in Washington next year for a nuclear summit. Now we must urge others to take practical steps to advance our shared nonproliferation agenda.

Our Administration is also committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy, and in the process spark an explosion of new investment, and millions of jobs. Now we must urge every other nation to meet its obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future.

We are restoring our economy at home to enhance our strength and capacity abroad, especially at this time of economic turmoil. Now, this is not a traditional priority for a Secretary of State, but I vigorously support American recovery and growth as a pillar of our global leadership. And I am committed to restoring a significant role for the State Department within a whole-of-government approach to international economic policy-making. We will work to ensure that our economic statecraft – trade and investment, debt forgiveness, loan guarantees, technical assistance, decent work practices – support our foreign policy objectives. When coupled with a sound development effort, our economic outreach can give us a better form of globalization, reducing the bitter opposition of recent years and lifting millions more out of poverty.

And finally, I am determined to ensure that the men and women of our Foreign and Civil Service have the resources they need to implement our priorities effectively and safely. That’s why I appointed for the first time a Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources. It’s why we worked so hard to secure additional funding for State and USAID. It’s why we have put ourselves on a path to double foreign assistance over the next few years. And it’s why we are implementing a plan to dramatically increase the number of diplomats and development experts.

Just as we would never deny ammunition to American troops headed into battle, we cannot send our civilian personnel into the field underequipped. If we don’t invest in diplomacy and development, we will end up paying a lot more for conflicts and their consequences. As Secretary Gates has said, diplomacy is an indispensable instrument of national security, as it has been since Franklin, Jefferson and Adams won foreign support for Washington’s army.

Now all of this adds up to a very ambitious agenda. But the world does not afford us the luxury of choosing or waiting. As I said at the outset, we must tackle the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once.

We are both witness to and makers of significant change. We cannot and should not be passive observers. We are determined to channel the currents of change toward a world free of violent extremism, nuclear weapons, global warming, poverty, and abuses of human rights, and above all, a world in which more people in more places can live up to their God-given potential.

The architecture of cooperation we seek to build will advance all these goals, using our power not to dominate or divide but to solve problems. It is the architecture of progress for America and all nations.

More than 230 years ago, Thomas Paine said, “We have it within our power to start the world over again.” Today, in a new and very different era, we are called upon to use that power. I believe we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies, we have the right President, and we have the American people, diverse, committed, and open to the future.

Now all we have to do is deliver. Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

I have highlighted the manipulative propaganda in red.

Chicago Protest this weekend, strangely missing from the nightly news

2009-07-12T20:43:00.013-04:00

People are taking to the streets in cities all over America. They are tired of the bailouts, tired of the lack of change and tired of the corruption. Ask yourself why your media isn't covering this. If everyone knew how many people felt the same way, they would gain strength and possibly get the crooks out of the Congress and the Senate. These aren't Republicans and Democrats these are angry working Americans furious that their elected officials won't listen to them. When Obama spoke of redistributing the wealth everyone thought he meant from working people to poor people. We all now know he meant from working people to rich bankers and large business owners. General Motors, AIG, CitiBank all standing in line for their handout coming out of our pockets. How is their bailout with huge bonuses and parties and summer homes, and private jets going to do anything for us? It never was, that was never the plan.

Those of you who voted for Obama you were duped, it's OK to admit it. We tried to tell you. It wasn't personal against the man, it was the men behind him who funded his campaign and are now forcing him to make policy that benefits them and not the American people. They paid dearly to be in your living room telling you how wonderful he was and building him up to sound like hope. This was by design so you would get him in office so he could do their bidding. We all wanted a miracle but logic was always there for us. You can't get out of debt by going into more debt. Hope blinded people. Only through information can we know just how large the group of patriots is. If the news mentions them they act as though they are terrorists for exercising rights that founded this country, that we sacrificed our brothers and fathers and husbands for.

When freedom of speech becomes terrorism, we've been taken over by terrorists.

A Must See!

2009-07-11T15:31:00.002-04:00

Interview with Democrat Dennis Kucinich on the Federal Reserve:

INTERVIEW:

Q: So, who has ultimate oversight power over the Fed?

A: Well, we have oversight power of the Fed, but the fact of the matter is that the Federal Reserve is as "federal" as Federal Express. What we should do is put the Federal Reserve under the U.S. Treasury so that we have control over their activities. Instead, what the government has done is give the Federal Reserve the ability to basically print money, to create money out of nothing, and to distribute it through their chain of contacts on Wall Street.

Q: Congressman Paul has introduced H.R. 1207 that would have a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO by 2010.

A: And I support that. Absolutely. Congressman Paul has been very vigilant on matter relating to the Federal Reserve. He and I agree with each other on this. We work together on matters of government accountability. The Federal Reserve should be accountable. However, they’re not directly a government organization, but they’re a creature of the government. And it was the privatization of our banking system that has given great power to vested interest in this country and they can use it for better or worse. Lately, it’s been for worse.

Q: So you feel the Fed is partly responsible for our current economic crisis?

A: Of course they are.

Q: How so?

A: The oversight responsibilities that the Fed has over the banking system are really not exercised in the interests of the American people. They were supposed to provide oversight on the conduct of banks and they didn’t do that. They basically looked the other way as banks started to dump massive amounts of money into mortgage-backed securities and these collateralized debt obligations kept growing and growing and growing. The Fed should have known. It’s their business to know the danger the economy was headed towards when people began to default in paying their mortgagees. They should have known.

Q: So, it sounds like that you’re saying the Federal Reserve is not succeeding in its mission.

A: Well... one needs to understand the mission of the Federal Reserve. And its mission, at its core, is to be supportive of the private banking system. One could argue that they have not done that by looking the other way as the banking system got heavily involved in subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations that actually led to the great trouble that, not just our banking system, but our entire financial system is in right now. The Federal Reserve has an obligation and they haven’t kept their obligation for oversight. So my subcommittee on Domestic Policy has jurisdiction over the Federal Reserve. And now we will exert the oversight that the Federal Reserve that the Fed was supposed to.

Q: And do you think you’ll be successful? From what I understand, the Federal Reserve has never fully been audited.

A: Well they WILL be. They cannot escape responsibility. The reach and requirements of transparency are now greater than they’ve ever been. And so, The Fed is not going to be able to escape those requirements. It’s a whole new world and the Federal Reserve will have to adjust to that. Again, I personally favor taking the Federal Reserve and putting it under the Treasury Department, so that way we actually have control over our monetary policies.

Q: Where is it now?

A: The Federal Reserve operates as a separate agency. We don’t really have control over the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is an independent banking authority.

Q: And then who owns the Federal Reserve?

A: The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks.

Q: And who are they?

A: Banks from all across America. So we need to get control back of our money supply. And that’s what I’m working on.

Q: How successful do you think H.R. 1207 will be to audit the Federal Reserve?

A: I think that will happen.

LINK

Finally on Mainstream News

2009-06-20T13:55:00.002-04:00

Notice they have the EPA as the counter. Remember the EPA has a history of backing hazardous chemicals. Look at DDT. They don't want to admit they first approved of a hazardous chemical being exposed to American citizens and secondly that they are influenced by strong lobbyist for the Aluminum manufacturing industry. The EPA took a year to finally ban DDT for what they called an "orderly transition" even though they knew the hazards involved. That means for one additional year people were exposed to DDT needlessly and many children born with birth defects all for the sake of the EPA saving face.

Another example is their treatment of asbestos, still not banned in the US, strong lobbyist for the asbestos industry have been diligent in paying off the EPA to not ban it even though they can under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. This industry sites job loss and potential economic ruin and the EPA sides with this industry rather than the 1,000's dying from Mesothelioma each year and their familes.

The hazardous waste known as fluoride is very expensive to dispose of as its concentration is lethal to human contact. The fact that this lethal toxic waste was ever considered for our drinking water is beyond comprehension for two reasons, logically a waste product no matter what anyone says has no business in our water supply and secondly, in a free society a government medicating its citizenry is neither in the vein of freedom nor is it moral. It's for us to decide if we want fluoride not our government.

The Aluminum manufacturers used money and influence and charged the municipalities a boat load of money, and paid their scientist to say it was effective in treating cavities and decay even though there is no scientific proof of this. In fact everything that's been scientifically researched about it says its a Neurotoxin that causes learning defects in children acts as a dulling agent making people lethargic and depressed and raises the absorption of aluminum by 300% in the brain which is the main cause of dementia later in life. In addition, the connection to cancer is also very probable. It's a neurotoxin affecting the nervous system.

The FDA has not even put fluoride through a "controlled study" to prove it's merits. But in this case with the EPA and the Aluminum manufactures being in cahoots, an actual legitimate "controlled study" may be impossible.

Great article on fluoride

2009-06-18T10:12:00.000-04:00

SICKNESS CONTROL 101: FLUORIDE - THE LUNATIC DRUG

"EARTH IS AN INSANE ASYLUM, TO WHICH THE OTHER PLANETS DEPORT THEIR LUNATICS." --Voltaire (Memnon the Philosopher).

Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It`s historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it.

Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride-- intended only for human consumption by people under 14 years of age--is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their expensive hazardous waste down our toilets. How many salesmen dream of such a deal? (Follow the money.)

Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride allegedly shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one package. There are reports of aluminum in the brain possibly being a causative factor in Alzheimer`s Disease, and evidence points towards fluoride`s strong affinity for aluminum and also its ability to "trick" the blood-brain barrier by looking like the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.

Scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on this mega-bucks PR ploy have consistently been given a very unscientific Black-PR treatment, and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never arrive in the press. Follow the money to find the control. In 1952 the slick PR campaign which ramrodded the concept of fluoridation through via our Public Health departments and various dental organizations was likened to a highly-emotional "beer-salesman`s convention" instead of the objective scientific experiment which it should properly have been. It`s continued in that vein right up to present time. To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. Ask yourself, "Is this response EMOTIONAL BLUSTER, or is it UNBIASED AND OPENLY- INTERESTED OBJECTIVITY?" There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific know-it-all ! attached to fluoridation. Many truly independent (unattached to any vested-interest) scientists who`ve spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been subjected to a surprising amount of uncalled-for and unfair character assassination from strong vested- interest groups who profit from the public`s ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Follow the money.)

Do you have diabetes or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. Since many diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million Americans probably shouldn`t drink fluoridated water, because in doing so, they`ll receive an excessive dose of fluoride.

Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which is your main route of fluoride elimination. --So those people with kidney disease also shouldn`t drink fluoridated water. Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where kidney patients on dialysis machines died, due to a fluoride overdose in the city water supply. Let`s begin at the beginning:

The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany`s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride`s supposed effect on children`s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr. Charles Perkins, a chemist:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. "In the 1930`s, Hitler and the German Nazi`s envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. ...

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual`s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient light lobotomy]

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children`s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world. ...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954. __________________________

Quoting Einstein`s nephew, Dr. E.H. Bronner (a chemist who had also been a prisoner of war during WWII) in a letter printed in The Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the `next` on the agenda of the water poisoners.

"There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless `intellectual` parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic--from within if they can, according to their plan--for their own possession. "The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us.

"Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. ...

"As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years, 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health-food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. Don`t do it.

"Even in small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most efficient rat-killer. ... Sodium fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God`s great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body, whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it. "Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting `dental health,` fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth, before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How can it be called a "health" plan? What`s behind it?

"That any so-called "doctors" would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal

insanity. "No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin`s Last Will and Hitler`s Mein Kampf:

"America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within." ...

"Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats. ...

"Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity--treason!" Dr. E.H. Bronner, Mfg. Research Chemist, Los Angeles. _____

Earliest available Russian fluoride evidence: (APFN NOTE: THIS INFO WAS FAXED VIA APFN IN 1993) http://enteract.com/~mgfree/Medical/Fluorine/FluorineApathy.html

"I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, from May 2, 1936, to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats with number 18-B-2. My testimony before the Government is in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for 1939.

"While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist training schools in New York and Wisconsin ... and we were trained in the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. Government. "... We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation, where it could keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. We also discussed the fact that keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water reservoir would be advantageous during the time of the revolution, as it would give us opportunity to dump this poison into the water supply and either kill off the populace or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water.

http://www.rense.com/general3/fluo.htm

Courage

2009-06-13T20:04:00.001-04:00

Danish News Report about 9/11- Why isn't this on our news?

2009-04-11T12:51:00.008-04:00

The world knows, why don't we?
The Research Paper

1988 Interview with Ron Paul

2009-03-28T21:23:00.001-04:00

Finger printed if You want to sell your home in Obama's Home State.

2009-03-22T12:23:00.003-04:00

The beginning of the end!

I've Seen It All Now

2009-03-22T10:30:00.008-04:00

A little thing called the MIAC report and America is turned on her head. This state research group that is advising the Missouri state police is claiming people with Ron Paul bumper stickers are domestic terrorists. Did you ever in your wildest dreams think a bumper sticker could be such a strong weapon. And the US Constitution, if you carry it, you are carrying terrorist paraphernalia. The US Constitution? The document that gives our president, congress and senate their rules. The document that protects us against a tyrannical government is now a symbol of being un-American. The very thing that gave us our freedom is now a symbol of hatred and scorn. You know why this happened? because Americans overwhelmingly voted for a Communist. So the powers that be think you aren't on the side of liberty. That you wanted a dictator so they'll start employing gestapo type tactics to round us up and identify us as the enemy. All because we believe in freedom liberty and the US Constitution. Because we didn't accept the lies and deception of the two party system. I can assure everyone, we are not part of any militia. I don't own a working firearm. I'm not part of any anti-American group. Just the opposite. I love my country and want to restore the Republic to it's freedom loving roots. If that makes me an enemy then this is not the country I thought it was. If freedom is un-American, America isn't free. We can be divided; split right down the middle and the whole united we stand divided we fall is the goal. If you aren't with us you're against us mentality, divide and concur. Click here to get your Ron Paul bumper sticker, if we all have one, they can't very well imprison us all. If they can isolate us , they can isolate you. It's only a matter of time. I'll proudly display a Ron Paul sticker just as the Jews wore their Star of David when they were singled out.

New Documentary

2009-03-17T13:18:00.001-04:00

Interesting Commentary

Green Bulbs are Dirty Electricity

2009-01-24T18:05:00.003-05:00

2012 they will be mandatory, call your state attorney general

It's time folks, we were given permission long ago!

2009-01-16T06:03:00.003-05:00

Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

These Facts Hold True, AGAIN!

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

We The People Foundation Press Conference

2009-01-05T14:34:00.000-05:00

If you are awake, this will scare the hell out of you!

2008-12-04T14:31:00.004-05:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

This 44 minute lecture by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's foreign policy adviser, is exactly what most Americans feared about Obama, that he would turn our free sovereign nation into a nation controlled by world leaders. Global government means that our nation would no longer be run by the people, for the people because we the people aren't controlling what happens to us anymore. We would have no say any longer in a global government.

This dates back to the beginning of America and why we came from other countries and conquered the new word; to get away from dominance by elite kings and royals, and slavery and high taxes. America was created as a nation run by each man able to control his own destiny by a system called a Republic in which normal men could run for office and create laws that benefited the people. The basis was a rule of law, that being our US Constitution, which we as citizens have had to protect and defend. Unfortunately we have fallen short for many years as we have allowed laws and bills to be passed which go against our rights as Americans with hardly a notice. We continually reelect politicians who serve industry giants who create monopolies and then wonder why our country is in such a mess. The media has manipulated most Americans to just feel the need to be included in the "Party" and have waged a war of "them against us". And nobody pays attention to the battle or the issue, they just jump into the heap of mindless idiots supporting the party just happy to be included. It's the saddest case of "group think" I've ever encountered.

My favorite quote:

"never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

The founders intended for our nation to be separate from other nations and run by us. Our US Constitution, if served, would keep us free and keep our government in check. Our little microcosm of the world would be self contained creating products and goods to serve our people and allow us to prosper all the while allowing Americans to gain wealth and be free.

A global government means the interests of the globe are first and our country's needs are secondary. If you think for a moment that a global government is going to allow us to keep our Constitution you would be very wrong. Why on earth would they allow us to have rights? As Mr Brzezinski so eloquently stated in this video:

"Today it is easier to kill 1 million people than to control 1 million people"

The idea is "control" and our Constitution directly contradicts that. He sees it in black and white, we either control you or kill you, there are no other options when world dominance is at stake. Wanting world dominance is never about money, but about power and control. The power to use natural resources as they see fit, to use human labor to their financial benefit. Citizens become a commodity for profit. The founders warned us that our Republic would be in danger of take over and it's been gradual. Our Media is totally controlled by the same people who want this global government. So much has taken place and never reported. I actually hear people repeat that global government is inevitable and this is about as treasonous as any American can speak. What has made us grand is freedom and liberty not tyranny and slavery. We enjoy what's left of our freedoms but if we allow this global governance to take place our citizens will be shocked at the reality of it. It's as though they repeat the tyrannical message of global government but think somehow they'll get to keep their freedom in the bargain. It doesn't work that way.

Our forefathers created a great nation. It's miles away from what they intended. I remember back in the 70's when people talked about the United Nations and how bad it was. That it used American resources to do bad things to small defenseless countries in the name of power and control. We have fought useless wars for this globalist agenda and have lost so many Americans for world dominance rather than fighting for freedom. We need to get back to worrying about America and Americans and regain our strength as a nation. This continuous breakdown of our nation piece by piece, is by design. We are like a wounded animal getting small bites that rip at our flesh which only serve to weaken us for the final attack. Our economy is the most recent to have been attacked, once a global money is in place we will lose total control over our individual livelihoods. A slave to a foreign master who doesn't recognize our freedom or our Constitution. If we can't decide on our money we have pulled the plug on America.

Our forefathers did not have global governance in mind, they knew we needed to take care of our own and stay out of the politics of power. This all about power. If you think a kind, just, freedom loving man wants to be the leader of the world you are sadly mistaken. A kind, just, freedom loving man, follows every letter of the Constitution. He knows it holds our freedom in the balance and he fights for it and defends it. How a leader handles the US Constitution is a litmus test for his loyalties. Barack Obama has done everything he can to usurp the Constitution at every turn. Most of the people who will make up his administration will be in direct violation of the Constitution and his reaction:

"The Obama team is well aware of it and they have dismissed it,

He refuses to show a legitimate birth certificate to prove he is Constitutionally eligble. He supported the highly unconstitutional Patriot Act and voted for the unconstitutional bank bail out... And America turned a blind eye, neglected their duty to defend the Constitution and voted him in...

Anyone who needs world power isn't about freedom. Control is not freedom it's just the opposite. Think of it in terms of controlling the world, only it isn't us doing the controlling. Brzezinski talks about what is needed, he isn't referring to us being in the driver seat, he's referring to a bunch of crazy old men who think they are better than us on the controls. He's telling us as though we are part of it, but we aren't in the plan, they just need us to agree to forfeit our freedom so they can move ahead with it. Socialism in this unique way is decided on by the people, only they have no idea what they are signing up for. Communism is taken by force. If we don't agree they'll be forced to take it, regardless of how the change comes about, both are just stepping stones; transition periods before dictatorship. When it's here it will be too late.

Of anything you have ever stood for in your life that ever mattered this is the one thing that matters most to America and humanity. If these control hungry evil people get a hold of America any more than they already have this will be a world crisis, not just our country's. Wake the fuck up. Listen to what this man is saying but hear it, don't just smile and bob your head like a bunch of mindless idiots. This is very, very bad! If you just think this through, actually think about the concept of world government and then remember why we are in this country on this soil it will come to you. God, I pray it will come to you.

Watch and Be Amazed

2008-12-01T13:55:00.004-05:00

Zbigniew Brzezinski is Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisor. Brzezenski was the national security advisor for President Carter from 1977 to 1981. In 1988 he endorsed HW Bush for President and was Co-Chair of the HW Bush national security advisory task force. From 1987 to 1989 he also served on the HW Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright was a student of Brzezenski.. GW Bush Secretary of State, Condi Rice (also a former national security advisor), who studied under Albright’s father, shares many of the same world government views with Brzezinski and Albright.

The proposals for global taxes by Obama have come with the recommendations of Zbigniew Brzezinski to pay for globalization and world government. Obama has proposed a global poverty tax in a US Senate bill. The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and “carbon footprints” from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body.

Source

Mike Ruppert, a former law enforcement agent is responsible for From the Wilderness

History Repeats

2008-11-18T18:56:00.008-05:00

Hitler knew just how important getting kids engaged in his mission would be; indoctrinate generations to support the agenda. Children no longer listened to their parents but their young impressionable minds were programmed to carry out the mission of the state. Once we see groups like these forming we must not allow them to grab hold. Getting control of the minds of our children can have devastating consequences. Having to reprogram generations to think for themselves again and support freedom can be a daunting task. The allure for children of being important to the state for the first time, to be part of a group for the first time to have a safe structured environment where they don't have to think is the danger and also the tool to make it happen.

Africa has a very dangerous element started by rebels. They steal children and teach them to kill. They kidnap children to grow their ranks and the leaders give kids drugs and alcohol and treat them like men. It works because children are so impressionable. They easily learn new languages and cultures because their minds are like sponges ready to absorb. We can't as a free society allow this to happen to our children. We have to teach them about freedom liberty and the US Constitution. If we teach them about freedom rather than captive slavery they will fight for freedom.

Obama's proposed civilian army where everyone 18-42 will serve four years will do exactly what Hitler youth did. It allowed all people rich and poor to be come comrades and equal. Four years of government training will only serve to suppress free thinking. The masses are usually mostly poor so it gives them a false sense of equality for the sole purpose of rounding up massive army's to do the government's bidding. This is straight out of Nazi Germany; it would make Hitler proud. Forced labor is not American or has anything to do with freedom or liberty. It goes against every American being their own person, and making their own decisions about their destiny. It is the extreme opposite of freedom. If these videos don't scare the crap out of you, you are already sucked into the propaganda. You've been warned.

This is amazing

2008-11-18T16:37:00.013-05:00

Informed voters....

America we are in trouble! You don't even know the Democrats are controlling Congress and that a Democrat, Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House the third in line to be president and all you can remember is the tabloid crap! That your Democrat, Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table so Bush would not pay for his war crimes.

Obama said 57 states. With one left to go...

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Change. Hope. I want some right about now! You were duped! Propaganda campaign, Hitler style only add the Internet. 95% of Germans voted for Hitler because they were inundated with propaganda not the truth. They could not possibly have known what they were doing. You should be angry first that your vote was hijacked by the media and second you allowed your brain to be manipulated over the most important decision that faces America. America was ready for a black man; just an honest black man. Thanks for nothing!

If you are a Democrat and you don't know the names of the people he asks about, please go out and research for yourself. You will be thrown into the reason America was destroyed. You will go down in history just like the Germans.

Names
Bill Ayers
Barny Frank
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid

Zogby Poll results
Fox story

Puppet of Finance Capitial

2008-11-07T17:42:00.005-05:00

Paper or Plastic?

2008-10-29T17:32:00.005-04:00

I voted last week and while standing in line to get my paper ballot, a process which took a half hour, I spoke to people in line asking, what are you voting on paper or the Diebold machines? The look of confusion was overwhelming. I'm perplexed, is it possible that Americans are totally unaware that their votes are getting stolen? Are they so trusting they believe something as sacred as the vote would never be hacked? I sat down and a woman asked one of the poll workers why I was sitting down. When I got the chance to speak to her I explained that I didn't trust the plastic because they left no paper trail and were built to be hacked. Nothing against her but she didn't understand a word I said, I was speaking French as far as she knew. She was a deer in my headlights and I was going too fast to stop. The percentage of Americans who are voting on these machines is now up to 80%. This means 80% of the votes cannot be audited or recounted as the machines tally the vote and do not break them down by voter. My message; ask for a paper ballot while you still can. If you think your vote matters, ask for paper.

For the record as is my pet peeve, we are a Republic not a Democracy as this video states "Democracy at Risk".

US Constitution a Flawed Document?

2008-10-28T13:13:00.009-04:00

Mr Obama thinks it's flawed because of the men who were enforcing it at the time of slavery. Their thinking was flawed but the document is not; he's mistaken. The document clearly contains language to include all men but it was selectively enforced in the historical time period he's referring to, to exclude people of different races.

The Constitution does not exclude or include any one race of people. He should have said we should have laws that support the document to truly be the America we could be. Our society does not live up to the US Constitution. If we did, our society would be enlightened and free for all men regardless of color, religion and nationality. I think it shows he has not read the very document he intends to swear an oath to, or more sinister, he's relying on the American people to not know what the Constitution actually says and rely on him to tell them, although not truthful, what to think of the document. If Americans actually read our founding documents they would see he's trying to pull the wool over their eyes. The sooner the Constitution is suspended the sooner the powers that be can turn our nation over to Socialism and a fascist government.

My hope is Americans read our founding documents and then realize he's lying, and from there to what motivation. The documents are all provided in my links to the right. Please read them and see for yourself. The very fact that he is lying and nobody flinches proves Americans don't know their founding documents. A nation of smart educated Americans would spot this snake oil salesman in a heartbeat.

If he wants to talk about a biased governmental form of racism lets talk about the "war on drugs". He has never once mentioned an end to this government racism sanctioned by our legislators and mainly targeting African Americans. The statistics don't lie. Even Ron Paul wanted an end to the war on drugs because it was a targeted war on minorities. We all know as a society, this is the case and yet this man is supposedly standing for the powerless; my ass. The Constitution if honored, would protect all men; we just have to let it and stop undermining it at every turn. The war on drugs isn't working! A record 7 million people -- one in every 32 U.S. adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of 2005. From 1995 to 2003, inmates incarcerated in federal prisons for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth. The study found that racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men -- about one in 13 -- are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. The figures are not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and more than three times as likely as white women to be in prison. Source. Let's see this change Obama, put your money where your mouth is!

If he intends to take an oath to that Constitution and is saying it's flawed we have a real problem. The whole problem in the last one hundred years has been this out right refusal to honor the document that sets us all free. The appropriate answer for Mr Obama would have been the document is flawed in that men interpret it with their own bias. If we truly honored the words in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal" we could have the society the founders truly intended for America. His rejection of the US Constitution and our founding documents is a very scary position; he's rejecting America as a whole. The documents support the position he claims to hold yet rejects the documents saying they don't. What does that say about the man and how he feels about America? The document does say not say these freedoms apply to only one group of people, but all people. How is that flawed? The interpretation was always the problem. That does not make the document flawed; but those responsible for protecting and enforcing it like congress, the president, the senate, the police and public servants; a group of which he is a part of, have an obligation to honor it and why they take an oath to it. They have failed their oath and the document, the document has not failed us.

I'm very saddened at his position on the US Constitution. We are in serious trouble as a nation!

Where was he actually born?

2008-10-25T21:53:00.000-04:00

Obama and his globalism agenda

2008-10-25T13:35:00.003-04:00

Globalism was always a fear of the founders. We left Britain to get away from being controlled by the monarchy. When we became a free nation, we fought for sovereignty. This global citizen language should scare the living daylights out of Americans if they actually understand why globalism is a bad thing for America.

We have to maintain control of our nation in order to remain free. If we are all rolled up in a global family, we aren't the deciders for our future. Our needs are secondary to the real deciders, the ones with money. As a nation we are broke. We won't be in a position to make the rules or even influence them because we have nothing to offer the world accept slave labor. Our Constitution limits the powers our government has. In a global world, there is no Constitution, no freedom, no liberty and no America. The day we lose sovereignty is the end of freedom. We will never get it back once the world controls our nation.

Architecture of a Takeover

2008-10-24T11:35:00.004-04:00

I was amazed at the brilliance of the NWO creating their figure head known as Barack Hussein Obama. McCain I expected based on the Bush selection for the last 8 years; he’s a carbon copy idiot with no leadership skills. Remember first it was Rudy, but that didn't fly because of the hatred toward him by New Yorkers. He was stalked by thruthers and widows of 9/11 to the point he couldn't go anywhere without the clear message that we "ain't buying Rudy as a hero". We have to thank their grass roots effort that got him out of the running. But the NWO is adaptive, in steps McInsane.

Back to Obama; his rise to popularity by the deciders was pure genius. They knew the group of American people we'll call the “liberals” would eat him up like turkey on Thanksgiving. Even Hillary was part of the planning. They had to have a contender the American people wanted less than a black man. Remember blacks got to vote before women did. Black Vote (15th Amendment 1869). Women Vote (19th Amendment 1919). They are relying on the manufactured Democrats they’ve been creating for the past 100 years to support Obama overwhelmingly.

Now the critical architecture in this whole scheme is the minority/poor vote. This very large portion of our population has been growing since the days of “the New Deal”. The end of true wealth accumulation by the common citizen dates back to the Great Depression. This house of cards built on debt gave a false sense of wealth as Americans gained material possessions but had debt behind it, not wealth. And the growing greed of the working man fueled the system; a system that would inevitably come to an end. Keeping up with the Jones was the mantra of the “great society”.

I'm going to take you to November of 2000. In Florida, in the state that won the election for George W, Katherine Harris, secretary of state for Florida and co chair of the Bush campaign in Florida hires a company to purge the voter rolls of convicted felons only they use a loose net grabbing anyone with even a similar name. Needless to say, the mess that ensued allowed Harris to declare GWB president. This event created an anger likened to a proverbial hornets nest with disenfranchised voters, mainly Democrats and the establishment knew it. The presentation of Obama is the strategy to get those millions of non trusting voters to jump back in the process by giving them a trust worthy choice on first sight. Click here for the events , and here.

The people who will vote for Obama have no wealth and probably never had any. Most are on the verge of financial ruin; one missed payment away from foreclosure, credit card debt that is growing, two and three jobs to support their families and have no knowledge of how the economy actually works. Many are getting some form of government benefits to supplement their cost of living in the form of food stamps, free health insurance or heating and housing help. All they know is they want to keep their lifestyle of material possessions but need a little extra money to keep the charade going. Obama’s wealth redistribution plan of taking from the rich to give to the poor is scratching their itch. Since they don’t understand the economy, they don’t realize they too will be taxed. They know intuitively they have been robbed because of the prices they pay for fuel, gas and food, and the value of their house is dropping like a lead balloon; because of this they sense something isn’t right. But the news and their candidate assure them everything is going to be OK, so they jump on board.

Another group of Americans who’ll vote for Obama are living off tax dollars. They haven’t worked in generations and see the color of his skin as instant understanding to their plight. They think he’ll make decisions based on his race, based on being a minority and based on understanding the poor, underprivileged and discriminated against. They don’t see a problem with raising taxes because they don’t pay them. They receive the benefit so they see taxes as necessary for their own existence. These folks have been created by a system of entitlement for generations. Their needs are met by the government. They see no justification to stop the current relationship because it allows them to live comfortably in a house they don’t pay for, eat food they don’t work for and ignore medical bills that belong to their government. They will vote for Obama because they need him to keep their support going. He represents consistency and continuation of the way things are. The Democratic machine has been tirelessly going out and registering the poor and those in housing projects during this current campaign. They tout the historical nature of this election and make them feel they finally have a voice; all very important parts of the plan. The main goal is to get a historical number of votes in the next election.

The final groups who will vote for Obama are women for many of the same reasons as the poor. Part of Obama’s platform was to mention his stance on equality for women. The whole presentation of Obama as a candidate has been very well thought out. Each issue has been selected for an outcome. Hillary’s failure was a very important part of that architecture. It sent a message to women; America isn’t ready yet for a female president, but maybe it’s ready for a black man. It’s an important step toward progress and many liberal women will see it that way. Michelle Obama is instrumental in this plan by assuring women she’ll make sure he supports equality for women to secure that vote.

Sarah Palin is another important move by the NWO to make sure they secure another demographic of the female vote. Notice she’s a subordinate to a man. The important point is they want as many people as possible to vote for either McCain or Obama, to get buy in from the largest number of voters in history because they have a plan that will require as many Americans as possible engaged in the process. Some will vote for McCain with the hope he doesn’t make it through his first term and we get our first woman president. What’s important isn’t that it may actually happen, but the voters think it might happen. In this case perception becomes reality.

Now Palin probably wasn’t part of the original plan but part of the adapted plan. What the deciders saw was Hillary was generally not liked by women. She was thought of as frumpy, dikey, bitchy and not respected. It was pretty clear Hill wasn’t working out like they had hoped. She seemed to have a decent lead but quite miraculously she conceded and Obama was the clear winner. Also the reason why she isn’t Obama’s running mate.

In steps the fairytale princess barbie doll, just like the one little girls all over America grew up with; Sarah Palin. She was carefully selected for her beauty, her motherhood and her general lack of intelligence and inexperience. She isn’t smarter than most women so isn’t perceived as a threat. She didn’t win the beauty contest but she was pretty enough to be there. She’s the proverbial hood ornament who has the “maverick” there to help her along the way if she gets too confused about her responsibilities. But she is not important really; she’s a manufactured actress in the story. Liberal women will not vote for Palin. They see her as everything they are not. The important thing is to get women to vote for either candidate so they are creating characters with qualities that will appeal to the two main kinds of women, the feminazi’s and the church going dependent types with traditional Christian values. It’s pretty clear in this election they have covered all bases. When’s the last time you saw an ugly female televangelist?

If you view this whole process as a screen play with the characters being carefully selected and developed it will make more sense.

So now it looks as though by popular vote, Obama will win. They have waged a very expensive campaign to convince millions of Americans he represents change but politicians and Americans alike, when asked, can’t verbalize exactly how that change will occur. His signs are everywhere. The media treats him like a rock star and his wife like the next Jackie O, even though she buys cheap generic clothes and is uglier than a mud fence. But again it’s manufactured, the media says it; dumb dumbs believe it.

Now here’s where this is going. Obama is not going to win the election in November. Let me rephrase that. He’ll win, it just won’t be reported that he won. McCain will be reported to have won. We’ve already had two elections like this and the American people didn’t do a damn thing. Why should they think this will be any different? Well it is different this time because they purposely created a messiah figure. They manufactured him to get people out of their seats. They want full engagement of the American people. They need it for what they have planned.

I’m going to jump tracks for a few seconds to put a few things in context. The American economy collapsed at a very bad time; by end of September 2008 it was finished. The deciders hoped it would hold out until the first of the year; but that much greed and corruption for almost 100 years was on borrowed time anyway. The collapse was the catalyst for the major changes they had planned. Change to dictatorship, martial law and suspension of the Constitution, it just came a few months too early. The NWO couldn’t keep it propped up until at least the next election so they had to employ the next best thing; a bail out. Notice the bail out isn’t working. It’s up and down and pretty clear it will have a full out collapse again right about the time the next president takes office. Also notice 95% or higher of the American people were against it. The House and Senate both shut down their e-mail servers, websites and switchboards because they didn’t care what the American people thought. They haven’t cared for years but this time they didn’t even try to hide it. The American people were powerless to do or say anything. A huge clue in who’s running this country. The gas prices going down are also part of the strategy. Something had to give so they gave a temporary reprieve because they want us holding out too. Lowering gas prices gave hope to a terminally ill system.

In the last week we have had cryptic premonitions about what will happen in the first few months of the next presidency. What will happen is this, it will be reported that McCain won the presidency. The majority of people who got behind Obama will revolt. Rioting, looting, and the need for martial law will be in America, and the American people will be the reason. Many Americans will end up dying in tragic race riots, protests, and police violence. Nobody will be safe. The need for general protection for all Americans will be a huge perceived need by the population, the economy that is already teetering on total destruction and is currently on life support will finally crash and burn. McCain will ask Obama to gather his followers to accept the transitions of martial law, the new currency and the suspension of the Constitution. They are counting on Obama’s supporters to believe everything he says and go with him. The fear and destruction resulting from the riots will scare people into submission and acceptance of martial law. They will willingly accept it.

This is all part of the plan. The easiest way to get rid of a population? Let them kill each other. We see it other countries; Africa comes to mind. I wish I could say we don’t already have the executive orders in place that will allow this to happen …but we do.

Obama is part of the two part plan. He already knows this as does McCain. In order to mobilize the nation they needed to give the people respective leaders they could trust. They needed the full court press to get people motivated to vote and take ownership of their government. Their passion will fuel the demise of America. Martial law will also end the Internet as we know it. The government will take control of all telecommunications and the transition to the digital TV signal in February will have all Americans wired in to hear what will happen next. 1984 revisited.

It will justify the end of liberty and freedom and our people will buy into the plan like never before in our history. One big giant send off to the America we know and love all in the name of entitlements and dependency.

This is when you wish you had a bomb shelter on the property…

The Choice is Clear

2008-10-23T10:41:00.007-04:00

The only true hope for change in America is a third party vote! Ask yourself why you only see the two sponsored by war on TV and in the newspapers? They are the status quo choice, not offering change or hope but more of the same looting and plunder of the American people. The two war side candidates voted for the 854 billion dollar bail out of the bankers...How can you give them your vote? Does this not serve as a clue to whom they serve? Step outside the propaganda and think for yourself. These aren't your choices, these are their choices and you are doing exactly as they hope you will; falling in step, not thinking and voting for their puppets. The founders of our nation entrusted us to protect our Republic. A vote for the War side is giving her up with a pretty little bow. Patriots are needed more now than ever in history, don't throw away our freedom and liberty with these bought and paid for traitors. Generations from now your ancestors will speak your name in honor for your service and protection of your country or they will not speak of you in public out of disgrace. It's not easy to stand alone for principle, but it's critical to secure our future.

The Brilliant Obama & McCain Supporters!

2008-10-19T17:47:00.010-04:00

A reporter for Howard Stern went into Harlem and asked people who they were voting for. When they said Barack Obama, the reporter then attributed McCain's views on Obama and listen to how the knowledgeable Obama supporters reacted.

money

2008-10-17T18:30:00.002-04:00

A disappointing drive

2008-10-14T13:28:00.004-04:00

I was driving around yesterday and was so disappointed in the political signs I saw in the yards in my community. What I learned is many Americans vote party loyal and not on ideas and people. The signs lined up like a party ballot and I'm not going to believe all the candidates in a given party are good and should be voted on. It just doesn't make sense to me.

My evolution as a voter has always been undeclared. I was all over the landscape looking at the individuals and what they stood for not seeing the R or D, but what was important; the issues. I think I'm alone on that. I recently woke up and started studying history and the important documents of our forefathers like the Us Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, and many other sources of history. I'm a registered Republican but I do not align myself with the neo conservative side of the party, but the conservative Constitution loving side similar to the founders of our nation.

Americans are lazy; its easier to just go down the list and check off all the D's or R's but what on earth does that say about us as a nation?

History tells us our countrymen fought hard to create this great nation. It was fought for on principles of liberty and freedom. The US Constitution is an incredible living document. The Constitution was created to protect us from our government getting too large, taxing us too much and taking away our freedoms. I'm inclined to believe it has not been successful in doing that because we have allowed our politicians to create laws against it. We were given the awesome responsibility to defend our Republic by making sure nobody went against our rule of law. That piece of paper is the difference between life and death as a free nation.

But nobody seems to care. I'm beginning to think Americans don't want freedom or liberty anymore. How can they, when they would get behind people like Barack Obama, John McCain or even George Bush? Both McCain and Obama voted for the recent $850 trillion bail out of the bankers, yet 90% of Americans were against it. But on November 4, Americans will go and vote for one of these two traitors to lead our nation. They have already overwhelmingly told you they side with the bankers, yet you will still vote for them. I can only believe we are a nation of idiots. It's mind numbing to me.

One of the biggest assaults on the US Constitution was The Patriot Act passed in 2001. John McCain voted for the Patriot Act. President Bush, when sending the Patriot Act to Congress, requested no hearings on it as he wanted no public input or discourse. He didn't want us getting in the way. The bill was printed at 3:45 a.m. the morning of the vote. The document was 345 pages long and was probably not read by any of the 435 members of Congress by the time they voted on it just 7 hours later. The bill contained provisions that had been rejected by Congress before 9/11 occurred. Only one Senator voted Nay, Russel Feingold from Wisconsin. Barack Obama wasn't yet a US Senator so he didn't have the opportunity to vote on the Patriot Act, but he did vote yes on the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill made the original Patriot Act permanent. The Patriot Act used the fear of terrorism to expand federal law enforcement powers. The Constitution clearly states no person should be denied life liberty or property without due process of law. The Patriot Act allows the Federal Government to call you an enemy combatant regardless of your innocence, detain you, seize your property, listen to your phone calls, read your email and they don't have to get a court order to do any of it. And they can put you in jail for up to 5 years and they don't even have to tell you why. John McCain and Barack Obama voted for this. I have to agree with Judge Napolitano on this one.

HR 1955, called the thought crime bill, is just another attack of the Constitution. It has already passed in the House, and was voted yes on by our own Betty Sutton, Marcy Kaptur in Ohio. let's see who passes it in the Senate. This bill would make it a crime to have this website. To speak out against the government in anyway. It passed overwhelmingly by 94%. How many clues do Americans need that they need to clean out on their government?

I feel like I'm watching train wreck in slow motion only I'm powerless to do anything about it.

A wasted vote?

2008-10-13T09:20:00.005-04:00

This is a really good piece on explaining the difference between an actual wasted vote and perceived wasted vote. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Granted there are enough brainwashed idiots who actually support the two status quo choices without question, but this video is for those folks who are sick about voting for either and need the truth in order to make the right decision. The presidential election isn't a horse race where you are trying to pick the candidate who will likely win, it's a huge responsibility as an American to choose in your heart who will best lead our country, secure our way of life and get us back to sound money and rid us of the mass corruption. McCain and Obama are part of the same corporate elite, the two party system is an illusion. A vote for either is a vote for more corruption. You can be assured of this because they are the only two candidates of about 8 who appear on the news.

As a thinking person, ask is it fair to only show the two candidates the establishment wants? They decide for Americans who they should choose. Some dumb asses will say yes, narrow it down for me. Smart voters understand that to preserve our Republic they must decide not have corruption decide for us. A nightly news program run by huge corrupt corporations shouldn't be deciding who leads the greatest free nation in the world, we should.

a speech

2008-10-11T20:04:00.003-04:00

Fluoride; the Poison in Your Water

2008-10-07T20:29:00.007-04:00

The general assumption is that fluoride provides a benefit to healthier teeth. The question to ask is why, if there is such a risk to ingesting fluoride our government promotes it as healthy? Fluoride is the main ingredient in Prozac, rat killer and cockroach killer. Fluoride increases the absorption of aluminum in the brain by 600%. Aluminum in the brain is the main cause of Alzheimers and dementia. Hitler fluoridated the water in the Concentration Camps to make the prisoners docile and lethargic. Fluoride does not have to be ingested to have ill effects its actually absorbed into the skin when it comes in contact with water. Reverse Osmosis takes fluoride out of the water. Boiling water does not remove fluoride.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

http://www.ewg.org/node/26063
http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm
http://www.fluoridefreeny.com/
http://www.all-natural.com/fleffect.html
http://www.wholywater.com/fluoride.html
http://doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html

Obituary for a Nation

2008-10-04T15:17:00.010-04:00

By Kerry Beard

October 4, 2008

The United States of America, 232 years of age, passed away tragically on Friday afternoon October 3, 2008 in Washington D.C. She was born to a group of patriots called the "Founding Fathers" at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, PA on July 4, 1776. Her birth was the first of it's kind in the history of the world. Once she gained her independence, she flourished and grew to become the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. She also offered to protect the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to all because she believed that all men were endowed by their creator with these unalienable rights.

According to the coroner's report, her death was caused by an overdose of a deadly toxin known as "greed & corruption". The coroner stated that the once powerful nation was unaware that she had been receiving injections of the extremely poisonous greed and corruption for nearly 100 years. Ironically, these injections were being administered by the elected officials who were entrusted with her care. The first injection was ordered by Woodrow Wilson in December of 1913 when he signed the Federal Reserve act into law, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so. This injection allowed a group of parasites known as "Federal Reserve Banks" to literally suck the life blood out of her fragile economic system.

Over the next several years a group of patriots under strict orders from the Declaration of Independence became aware of the poisoning of the young Republic and tried to warn the citizens who lived within her borders, but they were dismissed by a controlled media as unpatriotic kooks and quacks. In 2007 a strong movement developed to try to again save the dying nation. They knew, from reading the Founding Fathers' instructions, that there was an antidote to the poison; that the parasites could be exposed and removed. But they too were ignored and dismissed because the poisoning had entered into the blood stream of the entire Republic.

Once the elected officials realized that the 232 year old republic was about to meet her demise, they began pumping more and more poisonous greed into her already bloated deathly sick economic system. They said this was "necessary" to prop up the dying Republic's sagging economy. This effort was done despite the objection of 90% of the young Nation's 300 million citizens. 74 elected officials in the Senate and 263 in the House of Representatives agreed with the Treasury Secretary, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President that more toxic poison was the best treatment. And on October 3, 2008 President George W. Bush administered the final lethal injection by signing the so called "Bailout Package" into law.

No viewing, memorial service or even burial has been planned for the Republic. It seems very few know she has passed away, since the poison has made her unrecognizable from the Republic she once was. And the elected officials have most of her 300 million citizens falsely convinced they live in a Democracy (the stage before Dictatorship). Even her founding documents have become unrecognizable and objects of ridicule and scorn, since many have been lead to believe they are outmoded and outdated. She leaves behind her tired, her hungry and her poor. A donation can be made in her honor in lieu of flowers to the Campaign for Liberty.

A Scoreboard Based on the US Constitution

2008-10-02T15:15:00.016-04:00

How do your elected officials uphold their oath of office? The scoreboard rates politicians based on their voting record and adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty and traditional foreign policy of avoiding entangling alliances. The highest score that can be achieved is 100%.

Politicians are required to take only one oath to represent us and their position is based solely on this oath. Because we are a Republic form of government and are ruled by law; the US Constitution, the oath specifically ties to the document they are enforcing and protecting.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Some well known politicians below and how they scored

In Ohio
Dennis Kucinich 33%
Betty Sutton 0
George Voinovich 50%
Sherrod Brown 30%

National Politicians
John McCain 0
Barack Obama 0
Hillary Clinton 0
Joe Biden 14%
Ron Paul 100%
Chris Dodd 14%
John Kerry 14%
Nancy Pelosi 0

Politicians honoring their oath 100% In the House and Senate
Arizona John Shadegg 100%
Arizona Jeff Flake 100%
California Ed Royce 100%
California Dana Rohrabacher 100%
California John Campbell 100%
Colorado Thomas Tancredo 100%
Georgia Lynn Westmoreland 100%
Georgia Tom Price 100%
Georgia Paul Broun 100%
Texas Ron Paul 100%

This constitutes less than 2% of our 535 representatives who are doing their job. No member of the Senate scored 100%. Senators sit for a term of 6 years. And Congress sits for only a two year term. This may explain why Congress voted against the banks in the recent bank bail out and the Senate didn't fear the people and voted for it. It may be time to address term limits and change Senators to two years as well.

Only Presidential Candidates in the 2008 Election with 100% adherence to his oath of office
Texas Ron Paul 100%

If the oath of office doesn't matter to you, i.e., you are voting for anyone with a lower score than 1%, please explain in the comments, in detail why you feel the US Constitution and this oath aren't important to you.

As Predicted, Senate Sold Out

2008-10-02T13:49:00.004-04:00

It happened. None of the millions of phone calls, faxes or emails worked. They voted for the banks; fuck the American people.

The piddly salary we pay them is nothing in comparison to the bribes, trips, connections and power from the bankers. The only reason they bypassed the House was because they knew they had their markers in the Senate and they would get their bill passed.

The only excuse I will except in this bill passing is a gun was put to your head. In which case you need to resign and get out of this dangerous place called Washington DC. Leave, just walk away and join us in protest to get our Republic back. We know you sold out, you know you sold out yet the impending election hanging over your head, the potential loss of your political gravy train and the millions of calls and emails still couldn't sway you to do the right thing. Your list of names are circulating to millions of people all over our nation as I write under the heading of traitor. This was a deal breaker; a $700,000,000,000,000 deal breaker!

And those form letters explaining why you voted yes, they make you look like a bunch of idiots. We know more about the economy and Capitalism than you as is evidenced by these emails. See you believe the bullshit, we don't. So your emails spreading the bullshit make you look ill equipped to balance your own checkbooks.

And we trusted you?

And you STUPID FUCKING Americans behind Barack Obama and John McCain. Did you see how they voted? They voted with George W. Bush. They voted against the American people. Your two choice in one month have told you loud and clear they are on the bankers side not yours. Now what? Let me ask you, did you email them and leverage your vote with their vote? Did you tell them "you vote for this bail out you lose my vote" or did you follow in line like a bunch of lobotomy patients and get behind this fleecing of America because you are too stupid to know any better? That was a wake up call. Did you get it?

See they are assuming you are in such a stupor you believe whatever they say. $700,000,000,000,000 handed over to millionaires out of your pocket. $700,000,000,000,000 to the folks who have caused the forecloures of 2.2 million homes of Americans in 2007 alone, 1.3 million in 2006. The number will be 4 million or higher in 2008. So almost 8 million people will lose their homes and you think in your infinite wisdom giving these bankers responsible for this crisis $700,000,000,000,000 sounds fair? Because heaven forbid they take any loss.

I don't know who I'm more pissed at, the stupid people in my country our my corrupt government.

Dear Coward, we're taking over..

2008-10-02T13:41:00.003-04:00

A gun to the head of our politicians if they don't pass this bill.

http://www.larouchepub.com/

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

2008-10-01T10:47:00.010-04:00

We are in America today and things are not going well. Yesterday looked great, it looked hopeful but the true masters of our country stepped in and have blown it all to hell. We are officially in distress!

Let me recap, so the bail out bill didn't pass in the House of Representatives, so it's moving to the Senate...

What? Wait a minute... let me think back, "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on capital hill"...

House gets it and has to pass the bill in order for the Senate to vote on it. It didn't pass. How is it moving to the Senate? Oh I see the work around, we'll just ignore the House voting it down and let the Senate vote. The power brokers have been working feverishly calling in favors, making threats and offering back end deals so it will surely pass in the Senate. And the mainstream media has been pumping propaganda 24/7, threatening the loss of every Americans retirement and the total crash of the financial markets if we don't pass this bail out. Contrarily Americans are flooding switchboards and crashing servers screaming no to the bail out, but who cares right? Everything is in place. And while it's in the Senate they can start working again on Congress making threats and offering bribes and low and behold it will pass in the Congress this time too on its way back around. And the president can sign it into law. This bill will pass come hell or high water, you watch. If this bill passes, this better be proof to all you Americans in a patriotic coma we need to clean house. We need to start fresh, remove any and all incumbents, no exceptions! They have sold us down the river.

They want to give $700,000,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to a bunch of millionaires, hello is anybody out there? echo... echo...

And if that still doesn't work and the Senate and Congress actually start defending the Constitution and the American people and do what's right, McCain has offered his own solution to Bush; bypass our legislative process entirely and take dictatorial power and just appropriate 1 trillion in funds. Because we Amirikins don't understand the financial crisis or the Aconomie, we don't know what's best for our money. So says the Dictator.

My feeling quite clearly is the American people want a Dictatorship. With even the smallest knowledge of history and our form of government why isn't this scaring the fuck out of people? Why is this man who wants to be president who is proposing the use of dictatorial power before he is even in office, not on the front page of every newspaper in the country? Are you all wanting to trash our system of government and let these mental midgets decide for us? Does this make sense to you? Even Hitler gave the illusion of intelligence and eloquence. This guy can't even pronounce "America" correctly.

And your other choice, "To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say step up to the plate and do what's right for this country," he said. "And to all Americans, I say this: If and when I am president of the United States, this rescue plan will not be the end of what we do to strengthen this economy, it will only be the beginning." Looks like Ditto!!!

Our two choices want this money to go to the millionaires. They don't follow Austrian Economics or any respected economic theory, no they are on the fast track to Fascist Economics. Why isn't the fact that they agree on this economic policy making you wonder how this is possible? The main difference between Republicans and Democrats has always been their economic policies. And the two current candidates agree with George W. Bush, the worst Dictator in the history of America. These two men are carbon copies of what we have right now; the trilogy of evil. Wake Up, what do you need to shake you out of your coma?

They want to give $700,000,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to a bunch of millionaires

They want to give $700,000,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to a bunch of millionaires

Call, write, email, fax, protest, scream but most of all vote these mother fuckers out, your country depends on it!

It's a Good Day in America

2008-09-30T18:22:00.014-04:00

Finally Congress has a pulse, and the American people are responsible for administering CPR via a flooding of calls and emails to the point the House.gov website was totally down yesterday. I spent the evening before the bail out vote, emailing every single Ohio Congressional member in protest of this socialist bail out. The fleecing did not pass thankfully but in a surprising turn of events the bill was supported by the Democrats overwhelmingly. Don't the Democrats usually help the little guy? What happened? Why would they bail out the banks to the tune of $700,000,000,000,000, while millions of Americans are struggling to eat?

It was unprecedented, almost the entire Democratic Congress agreed with Republican president Bush. Almost the entire Republican Congress disagreed with the president. It really showed why the Democratically controlled Congress has done nothing we have asked; we are still in Iraq, we are still losing jobs; it's easy, they are doing Bush's bidding. The two party system of checks and balances and apposing ideologies is no more. Their overall approval rating has been the lowest in history because of this. It's a proud moment for every American that bill did not pass. After the dust cleared a few surprising videos surfaced and really put the "p" in proud for all Americans.

I'm originally from Toledo and she was my girl and still is! I do want to point out though she says in one breath a banking system that has worked for 60 years but then highlights how they have been corrupt the entire time. She's got a great start but needs to finish connecting the dots; the Fed is terrible for America.

So what does this all mean? Hope, from both sides of the isle!

We still have the shameful and disgrace of an American, Pelosi. First her taking impeachment off the table. She is a guest at our table lest she forget, and has no right to decide what will be served.

The picture of her that went through the Internet that is featured above, was so telling of the result of the vote; failure. She gambled and lost. She voted against the American people and her face tells a thousand tales. Hopefully this will mark the end of her political career. If I read her face correctly, she knows this. I'm going to guess she received millions of emails since her contact page was on every website I go to, and the people, like they told every other Congress member, was vote "NO" to this fleecing of America. Her face shows she now knows she was in grave error. Sorry Nancy, you don't get to be prom queen...

But lets get back to hope. I saw a very nice piece done by Donald Trump who gave a little glimmer of hope in the righting of the market.

Did he say oil prices down to $25.00 a gallon? And the Dow today was back up 465 points. This tells every American this whole bail out emergency was a lie. The Fed pumped 630 billion in the global financial system today; they had the money, they just wanted ours and they wanted it as a law, so they could legally bilk us. We were not at the verge of collapse. Yesterday when the stock dropped, it had dropped well before the vote was taken and they thought it would pass. So Congress did the right thing. It was too rushed and too behind closed doors and our Democratic Congress showed their hand, Pro bankers- Anti American.

I know this guy is annoying to listen but he has a lot of good information.

So now we have to continue the effort, keep writing and emailing and calling our representatives and be relentless in the fight to not let this robbery pass. I think it's also a perfect stepping stone to stop the Federal Reserve and go back to sound money. If we only spent what we had we would be in no crisis. I'm energized and hopeful that we do have a few Congressional members who are on our side albeit few and far between but a few is better than none. Sometimes it just comes down to apples

Freedom & Liberty to America!

Greg Palast

2008-09-21T17:26:00.003-04:00

Nice piece done by Greg Palast an American Reporter for the BBC. Also his report on Hugo Chavez Venezuela's President.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3