Quantcast
Channel: read my mind
Viewing all 3271 articles
Browse latest View live

Charlatan, Charlatan, Where Do You Roam?

$
0
0
*******
*******
Alex Jones is Definitely "Controlled Opposition"
by Peter C
(henrymakow.com)
I'm certain my youtube account comments never show on Jones's show. He is censoring to the hilt. You should have seen the comments on his youtube channel after David Duke destroyed him, 90% attacking Jones. He has definitely cleaned up his youtube channel so adverse comments are kept to a minimum.
Here's some thoughts I generally spread about Jones, when given the chance, much more could be written, he is definitely "controlled opposition":
Alex Jones is exposing the massive criminal element in the US govt - 3 hours a day - 6 days a week, keeping truther's minds occupied with some great stories. But NEVER exposes the Israel lobby - NEVER!!! And as the information shows below, the ISRAEL LOBBY controls the USA. Alex hates the tyrannical government that is controlled by Israel who he loves?!?! make any sense????Alex Jones strongly supports Israel, he says so here.
The US govt is wholly controlled by the ISRAEL LOBBY, and so is every western country. The Jews print the money, so they have control, it's that simple. If politicians don't comply with anything they want, they will not get the financial support to win election and the Jew media will condemn them, it's that simple. They beg and crawl to the Jews, so they can get their little dose of power or fame.  Here's some evidence -
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Thomas H. Moorer 
(1912 - 2004)
Admiral, US Navy & Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff during interview on 24 August 1983
"Red Ice Radio - Jeff Gates - How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy and Public"
Kirk Beattie: Israel has major sway over congress and its Middle East policy - LARRY KING show
E. Michael Jones  -- "Every single candidate now of the Republican Party is a total pawn of the Israel lobby. It's a bad news for America,"
"Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney revealed what amounts to some pretty startling news regarding the extent of the Israeli lobby's influence over Congress. During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were requested to sign pledges of support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to the Zionist state. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate's campaign."
"Introduction to the Israel Lobby: The Israel lobby is one of the most powerful and pervasive special interest groups in the United States. It consists of a multitude of powerful institutions and individuals that work to influence Congress, the president, academia, the media, religious institutions, and American public opinion on behalf of Israel."
Jones hates the tyrannical government that is controlled by Israel who he loves?!?! make any sense????
ps- you should watch this video on Jones, when asked whether he is controlled opposition-
"Published on Oct 19, 2015
Alex Jones unloads on another bonehead caller asking if he is control opposition.
Obvious from that nonsense that he is controlled opposition, he needs more exposing.
-----
First Comment from Sky
Appreciated the piece 'Alex Jones is Definitely "Controlled Opposition" by Peter C. We've recognized for some time Jones' failure to articulate the Talmudic and Israeli role in all this was not accidental or coincidental.
Here's another Charlatan to add to the list: Mike Adams, 'The Health Ranger'. Like Alex, we've watched Mike build from a one man show into a veritable industry. We thought Mike was the real deal until recently when we noted his articles on U.S. domestic and foreign policy issues only made sense if he had lost his mind, or was a New World Order operative.
We voiced our concerns in the comment section regarding two specific articles, but didn't follow through to see if they were posted. Then, when he wrote this article (link: http://www.naturalnews.com/052081_Amazon_censorship_online_book_burning_Nobody_Died_at_Sandy_Hook.html) on censorship, we commented respectfully and in line with other commenters and noticed that it was immediately taken down. We contacted his organisation, but of course never heard back. Draw your own conclusions.
*******
Glenn Beck The CIA Shill In Libertarian Clothing
by Cecil Iscool
Posted on April 28, 2014
The pedigree of Beck’s circle reveals he is not a libertarian and does not believe in the Constitution
Kurt Nimmo via Infowars

Glenn Beck, who fancies himself a libertarian, is working with corporate media insiders and a former CIA employee who flaunts his membership in the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. The objective of this group at the very heart of Beck’s operation, now readily apparent following the Cliven Bundy standoff, is to portray the Nevada rancher as a racist zealot, a member of a dangerous and outlaw sovereign citizen movement, and inseparable from violent and conspiracy crazed “militia” domestic terrorists. Beck’s campaign mirrors that of the Obama administration, Eric Holder’s Justice Department and the liberal media intelligentsia.
Beck and company are exploiting a carefully crafted meme manufactured in the intervening years since the Oklahoma City bombing by the Southern Poverty Law Center in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the establishment media. They are using this government created and SPLC disseminated mythology to foment discord within the patriot movement and also set the stage for a false flag event that will serve as a coup de grâce that will destroy the movement.
The correlation between the Obama administration, the Justice Department and Beck became obvious as the standoff progressed, most notably when Beck began to repeat government talking points to attack Bundy and his supporters.
Establishment Talking Points
On April 13, as the Bundy standoff was in full swing, Becket Adams, writing for Beck’s The Blaze, openly echoed the government narrative. He attempted to disprove Senator Harry Reid’s connection to a Chinese energy firm and plans to build a solar plant on public land, an effort documented on April 11 by Infowars.com journalist Kit Daniels.
Beck and Adams also cited the debunked claim that the federal government owns and manages “public land” in Nevada (in direct violation of the Constitution) and insisted Bundy is breaking the law. This claim conforms to the narrative established by the federal government and its propaganda media.
In addition, Adams supported the claim pushed by the government and the establishment media that Bundy’s cattle grazing endangered a tortoise (in fact, asAdan Salazar demonstrates, the tortoise has benefited from cattle grazing).
Finally, Adams tried to argue the Bundy family was a threat to heavily armed BLM agents because they cited Ruby Ridge and Waco and, like millions of ranchers, farmers and other rural Americans, keep and use firearms. Adams’ commentary is nearly indistinguishable from rhetoric put out by Democrats (and, to a lesser degree, Republicans, including the Koch Brothers) and the establishment media. In fact, the establishment media dutifully ignored the story until it went viral in thealternative media and they were required to engage in damage control.
On his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck accused Alex Jones and Infowars of exploiting the Bundy affair as a catalyst to launch a violent revolution. “Quite honestly, some of the people from… uh, what’s that stupid website’s name? Infowars,” Beck said. “Because these guys were so deeply embedded with the Bundys, we thought there’s something wrong… if you don’t see these guys a mile away, that’s a red flag and it’s not a false flag (laughter). These guys are dangerous. They are looking for revolution, they’re looking for a fight, and keep those guys a million miles away. Anybody with any spiritual radar can see that one coming.”
Beck’s accusation appeared several days before Senate majority leader Harry Reid made similar remarks. Reid characterized Cliven Bundy and his supporters as armed “domestic terrorists.” In addition, Reid called for a “united front” against Bundy, a call that paralleled Beck’s remark Americans should reject Bundy’s stand against the federal government and should distance themselves from his supporters who Beck slandered as crazed followers of Alex Jones.
Finally, sounding like aspokesman for FEMA and the government, Beck advocated non-resistance to government tyranny during the standoff.
“This morning I got up and I saw some more news reports, and more people in America that are standing up now and crying for revolution, insurrection, arming yourself, and a call to arms,”Beck said on his radio program on April 15. “I will tell you I believe in the Second Amendment, and I will defend myself. I believe in the rights that we have. But I will tell you more than I believe in my rights, I believe in the responsibilities that we have to God. And God does not call anyone to anger. God does not call anyone to vengeance ever, ever, ever.”
Glenn Beck and Company: CIA, CFR and Establishment Media Insiders
Beck’s coterie is indisputably linked not only to the establishment media and its endless diversionary game of false left-right politics, but also the intelligence community. If this does not reveal the true nature of Beck’s operation, nothing does.
Buck Sexton. A Blazetv host, Sexton is Beck’s direct link to the CIA and the CFR. His LinkedIn profile states he worked for the agency from 2005 until 2010. He also spent time with the Council on Foreign Relations, the premier globalist organization operating as the shadow government, a factrevealed by Hillary Clinton.
Betsy Morgan. According toLinkedIn, she is the president of The Blaze and has a background serving the corporate media, from CEO of AOL’s Huffington Post to Senior Vice President of CBS Interactive. She has an MBA from Harvard Business School.
S. E. Cupp. She is one The Blaze’sprogram hosts.  She has an extensive background in establishment media circles, including The New York Times, MSNBC (where she was a talk show co-host), CNN, Fox News, and The New York Daily News. Describing herself as a “mainstream [establishment] conservative,” Cupp has criticized Ron Paul’s foreign policy views and his views on the Federal Reserve.
Laurie Dhue. She hosts The Blaze’s For the Record and is the channel’s primary news anchor. She also sports a background in establishment media. Dhue was a Fox News anchor and worked at MSNBC, a fact demonstrating how effortless the crossover is between so-called conservative and liberal circles in the establishment.
Dana Loesch. Another The Blaze media host demonstrating thelinkage between corporate and faux alternative media. Loesch has appeared as a political commentator on Fox News, CNN, CBS, ABC and HBO. She left the St. Louis Tea Party after a failed attempt to get the organization to back an establishment candidate during a congressional race. In December, 2012 she sued Breitbart.com, claiming she endured a hostile work environment.
Considering the pedigree of Beck’s circle, it is obvious he is not a libertarian and he does not believe in the primacy of the Constitution. It is accurate to say Beck is working in concert with the government to sabotage patriotic Americans who believe the Bundy standoff and the armed and menacing reaction by the federal government represent a mortal danger. It is one worth drawing a line in the sand in response as Beck’s former colleague at Fox News, Andrew P. Napolitano, rightly said.
*******
Glenn Beck: The Lunatic Shill
Paul Gottfried
June 21, 2010
Richard Spencer’s discussion of the neoconservative gestalt popping out of Glenn Beck’s program puts a number of things in perspective. For several years now I’ve been hearing Beck’s tirades courtesy of my wife, who tunes in on his attacks on the Obama administration. While listening to Beck in recent months, while trying to work on the internet, I found myself heartily agreeing with his characterization of Woodrow Wilson as “undoubtedly our worst president.” I also thought that the briefs Beck presented against Wilson and FDR as the creators of morphing managerial states and as bellicose inciters of hate against “undemocratic” minorities showed some independent judgment. In fact I began to wonder how a network as thoroughly controlled as FOX by neocon money and GOP influence could allow this alcoholic-turned-Mormon to go on railing against their authorized heroes. Surely Kristol, Krauthammer, Barnes, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. could not agree with what he was saying, beyond his ritualistic invectives against Democratic spending habits!
But Richard explains quite convincingly how Beck is on the same page with his sponsors. It is not by accident that he brings on to his program almost exclusively neoconservative guests, like the pseudo-historian and passionate advocate of anti-discrimination legislation, Jonah Goldberg. Beck’s neoconservative pals provide the proper context for his remarks, which are typically aimed at safe targets. These include spendthrift Democrats and long-dead Progressives, who supposedly paved the way for the current Democratic administration.
Beck never points out that both national parties happily accept a government vastly larger and more intrusive than any regime that the Progressives advocated. The GOP, moreover, assisted the Democrats in creating such an expanding welfare-therapeutic state. It is also painfully obvious that the Republicans are not likely to cut this bloated bureaucracy in any critical way, judging by their past performance in national politics. I’d be delighted to know exactly what Beck and Goldberg plan to abolish or rescind in their war against our “fascistic” legacy. How about the Civil Rights Act or the American with Disabilities Act? Perhaps Beck and Goldberg would like to dismantle the Department of Education or put on the road to extinction the ADA? If they are for such daring endeavors, it would come as a total surprise.
Richard is also on to something in noticing the exuberant groveling before minorities to which Beck has grown accustomed. Whether making fictitious discoveries about black founders and black civic leaders in the early American Republic or celebrating Martin Luther King as the fount of American religious wisdom, one can count on Beck imitating a second-rate professor of black studies. Made-up black achievements flow from his lips, like the cascading Niagra River as it reaches the falls.
Although such performances may make Beck feel virtuous, they are inexpressibly infantile. Does Beck honestly believe that his confabulations would cause blacks to vote Republican? The GOP has been losing the black vote steadily since it embarked on its groveling campaign. If Beck’s noise has any value, it might be to reassure his neocon patrons that he shares their unqualified support for the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. This revolution, taken together with its feminist, Latino, and gay legal repercussions, did far more to put the government on our backs than anything that Teddy Roosevelt or Martin Heidegger (who is another one of Beck’s villains) might have done. One might hope that a supposed advocate of small, decentralized government would address these transformations of the 1960s.
A promise: I shall gladly revise my negative judgment, which Richard helped confirm, if and when Beck brings on his program members of the non-authorized Right. It will not do simply to invite on more screamers against Obama’s inflationary policies or the discoverers of long-hidden links between Progressives and Democrats (but not between Progressives and Republicans). Unless Beck starts engaging “sensitive” issues, of the kind that Rand Paul recently broached, it will be clear that he is nothing more than what I think he is, a particularly hysterical shill for the usual suspects.
(Reprinted from AltRight by permission of author or representative)
*******
Also See:
Is Glenn Beck a Shill?
03 September 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/09/is-glenn-beck-shill.html
*******

Lets Stop Central Banks From Creating Money Out Of Nothing!

$
0
0
*******
Switzerland Follows Iceland in Declaring War Against the Banisters
Isaac Davis, Staff
December 30, 2015
“If you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” –Josiah Stamp
Iceland has gained the admiration of populists in recent years by doing that which no other nation in the world seems to be willing or capable of doing: prosecuting criminal bankers for engineering financial collapse for profit.
Their effective revolt against the banking class, who drove the tiny nation into economic crisis in 2008, is the brightest example yet that the world does not have to be indebted in perpetuity to an austere and criminal wealthy elite. In 2015, 26 Icelandic bankers were sentenced to prison and the government ordered a bank sale to benefit the citizenry.
Inspired by Iceland’s progress, activists in Switzerland are now making an important stand against the banking cartels and have successfully petitioned to bring an initiative to public referendum that would attack the private banks where it matters most: their power to lend money they don’t actually have, and to create money out of thin air.
“Switzerland will hold a referendum to decide whether to ban commercial banks from creating money.
The Swiss federal government confirmed on Thursday that it would hold a plebiscite, after more than 110,000 people signed a petition calling for the central bank to be given sole power to create money in the financial system.
The campaign – led by the Swiss Sovereign Money movement and known as the Vollgeld initiative – is designed to limit financial speculation by requiring private banks to hold 100pc reserves against their deposits.”  [The Telegraph]
Switzerland is in a key position to play a revolutionary role in changing how global banking functions. In addition to being the world’s safest harbor for storing wealth, it is also home to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a shadowy private company owned by many of the world’s central banks, and acting as a lender to the central banks. The BIS is the very heart of global reserve banking, the policy that enables banks to lend money that does not actually exist in their bank deposits, but is instead literally created electronically from nothing whenever a bank extends a line of credit.
Reserve banking is the policy that guarantees insurmountable debt as the outcome of all financial transactions.
The Sovereign Money initiative in Switzerland aims to curb financial speculation, which is the intended and inevitable result of reserve banking, the tool that makes financial adventurism possible by supplying the banks with endless quantities of fiat money.
Limiting a bank’s ability to produce money from nothing would be a direct blow to the roots of the banking cartel, and would cripple their ability to manipulate the world economy. Here’s how it works, in rather simplified terms:
 
“…if we had access to the same computer terminals the banks have, we could magic in or out of existence all the imaginary stuff we are trained to think of as important – money – in whatever quantities we liked.
This is how it works: when they print quite a lot of this stuff there is a boom. When they print too much of it, there is inflation (actually, the printing of money is inflation). When they stop printing it or simply hold on to it, there is a depression.” [Source]
 
In Switzerland, 90% of all money in circulation is electronic, and for this, The National Bank of Switzerland has become the direct target of the Sovereign Money Campaign. Swiss law has in the past required banks to back all currency creation with collateral assets like physical silver or gold, however in recent decades the climate has changed, and, “due to the emergence of electronic payment transactions, banks have regained the opportunity to create their own money.”
The grass roots campaign said in a public statement regarding the intentions of the referendum, “banks won’t be able to create money for themselves any more, they’ll only be able to lend money that they have from savers or other banks.”
This is an interesting twist in the human saga of man vs. banks, and while it remains to be seen if the referendum passes or not, it must be pointed out that it does have its own problems, articulated by Sam Gerrans:
 
“… it does say that the central bank should be given sole right to create money. This would essentially leave the creation of money in the same hands as those who control the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England rather than allow them to farm out the process. But at least it shows that people are beginning to wake up to where the true power lies.
In the unlikely event that this grass-roots movement in Switzerland should get its way and its proposed legislation be enacted, and then begin to morph into something which really does threaten the banking elite, we must not be surprised if Switzerland is shortly discovered to be harboring weapons of mass destruction, or to have masterminded 9/11, or to be financing Islamic State.”
Part of the cultural conditioning of our time is an ingrained, pre-assumed dependency on sacred cow institutions like banking. Just like it is impossible for most Americans to envision a world without Democrats and Republicans, it is difficult for most people to imagine a world without predatory global banking.
Yet, there are a number of other possibilities for trading, storing wealth, and facilitating development in the world. This is not the only economic system we can imagine, and as Iceland has proven, people can regain control of their collective wealth, so perhaps this revolution will foment further in Switzerland, presenting a chance to at least bring greater awareness to the truth about central banking.
*******

Is the Value of your Money About to Change?  
Published on Nov 8, 2014
*******
First They Jailed the Bankers, Now Every Icelander to Get Paid in Bank Sale
Claire Bernish
October 29, 2015
(ANTIMEDIA) Iceland — First, Iceland jailed its crooked bankers for their direct involvement in the financial crisis of 2008. Now, every Icelander will receive a payout for the sale of one of its three largest banks, Íslandsbanki.
If Finance Minister Bjarni Benediktsson has his way — and he likely will — Icelanders will be paid kr 30,000 after the government takes over ownership of the bank. Íslandsbanki would be second of the three largest banks under State proprietorship.
“I am saying that the government take some decided portion, 5%, and simply hand it over to the people of this country,” he stated.
Because Icelanders took control of their government, they effectively own the banks. Benediktsson believes this will bring foreign capital into the country and ultimately fuel the economy — which, incidentally, remains the only European nation to recover fully from the 2008 crisis. Iceland even managed to pay its outstanding debt to the IMF in full — in advance of the due date.
Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, Budget Committee vice chairperson, explained the move would facilitate the lifting of capital controls, though he wasn’t convinced State ownership would be the ideal solution. Former Finance Minister Steingrímur J. Sigfússon sided with Þórðarson, telling a radio show, “we shouldn’t lose the banks to the hands of fools” and that Iceland would benefit from a shift in focus to separate “commercial banking from investment banking.”
Plans haven’t yet been firmly set for when the takeover and subsequent payments to every person in the country will occur, but Iceland’s revolutionary approach to dealing with the international financial meltdown of 2008 certainly deserves every bit of the attention it’s garnered.
Iceland recently jailed its 26th banker — with 74 years of prison time amongst them — for causing the financial chaos. Meanwhile, U.S. banking criminals were rewarded for their fraud and market manipulation with an enormous bailout at the taxpayer’s expense.
This article (First They Jailed the Bankers, Now Every Icelander to Get Paid in Bank Sale) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org
*******

IMF Whistleblower or Psyop Plant Karen Hudes: "The Jesuits Run IT ALL!!"  
Published on Jan 8, 2015
*******
Is There a Conspiracy to Bring Honest Money to the World?
Isaac Davis, Contributor
Waking Times
December 12, 2014
It is impossible to unravel our greatest societal problems without taking aim at the world’s financial system, which is fundamentally corrupt on many levels.
The global financial system, organized around centrally managed, privately
owned, fiat, fractional reserve currencies, is an engineered tool of the world’s banking elite that, by design, enslaves the public to inflation and impossible to pay off debt. The efforts of the money masters to take control of the world with their debt-backed money has paid off wildly for them, and the resulting economic imbalances and fiscal atrocities can be seen in every corner of the economy and in every nation on earth. While poverty is being globalized, the banking cartel and their 1% elite are reaping riches greater than the wildest imaginations of history’s most opulent Kings and rulers.
Freedom for the human race begins with freedom from servitude to corrupt money.
“The American people have no idea they are paying the bill. They know that someone is stealing their hubcaps, but they think it is the greedy businessman who raises prices or the selfish laborer who demands higher wages or the unworthy farmer who demands too much for his crop or the wealthy foreigner who bids up our prices. They do not realize that these groups also are victimized by a monetary system which is constantly being eroded in value by and through the Federal Reserve System.” – G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
Many activists and people with integrity are chipping away at the financial system by demanding a return to publicly managed, asset-backed currencies, by creating rogue local currencies, and even by exploring new technologies like Bitcoin, but, all of these efforts seem to be gaining momentum much more slowly than the current financial paradigm is stealing our prosperity and future. For this, many intelligent and prudent folks are preparing for the worst, a global economic collapse, which would inflict unimaginable suffering on the world. Under the current paradigm collapse is inevitable.
Is there any hope of overcoming the banking cartels and the money-changers without the end of life as we know it? Can the human race go from a completely corrupt economy to an honest economy practically overnight without suffering the total devaluation of everything so many have worked for?
It seems highly unlikely, but some outspoken people are getting behind the message that powerful, yet benevolent hands are at work behind the scenes to do just that: bring about honest money for the world as a replacement to the fiat fraud and financial plunder we toil under now
Enter The Dragon Family
Outside the circle of usual suspects involved in the debate about monetary policy are some interesting characters who are unified in a public message of hope for the world in this regard. Their major claim is that there is an extremely powerful, yet benevolent, secret Asian organization that has the connections, influence and capacity to overcome the inertia of corruption in world finance, doing us all a colossal favor of the highest order.
The primary conspirator in this theory is the so-called Dragon Family, an above-the-law, outside of the system, extremely wealthy family who is motivated to save the world from the grip of the evil Rothschildian banksters and financial manipulators.
A rather basic primer on the Dragon Family is found here:
*******

Stuff They Don't Want You to Know - The Dragon Family
Published on Mar 14, 2012
In 2009, Japanese nationals were caught trying to transport billions of dollars worth of US bonds to European banks. The US claims these bonds were fake, but others claim there's something bigger afoot. Tune in to learn more about the 'Dragon Family.'
*******
The Super-Gold Solution from a World Bank Whistleblower
Former World Bank lawyer and whistleblower, Karen Hudes, recently made statements regarding abehind-the-scenes move by secretive players to introduce and new gold-backed world currency to replace the collapsing dollar. Her main claim is that there is a considerable amount of going being secretly held in bank vaults in Hawaii, Singapore and throughout the US, and that this gold is being positioned for roll out as a new currency once the dollar begins to crumble under the stress of corruption and manipulation.
“The gold will be pressed very thin and put between a plastic envelope which will act just like paper currency, except that the value of the gold will be equal to the stated value of the currency.” – Karen Hudes
She suggests that within the coalition of BRICS nations there is a movement to release this wealth to the world as a means of upending economic collapse:
“Numerous coalitions have formed, such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the Group of 77 (which is actually 130 developing countries) to help releases these gold funds to humanity.” – Karen Hudes
*******

*******
Foster Gamble Talks Money Changes
Additionally, Foster Gamble, the creator of the hugely popular and inspiring documentary film, Thrive: What on Earth Will it Take, recently made a public announcement making similar claims about a powerful behind the scenes family making moves to bring honest currency to the world. He claims that the BRICS nations have created what is called the New Development Bank, and are actively making agreements that will undermine and replace the dollar, to our advantage.
His recent statement on this matter is seen here:
A Conspiracy?
So, is there a conspiracy to bring the world honest money? It sounds like fantasy when you consider the powerful legacy and ongoing history of the present money masters, yet with such a global awakening underway, the truth about financial corruption is plain for anyone to see. Something has to give.
The message that there is a hidden hand working to bring honest money would be exciting, yet there simply is not sufficient evidence available to support this notion. The downside here is that without the confidence that this message is true, which we don’t have, the message becomes disempowering, and we can do without that.
If good-minded and active people are being told that some behind the scenes, as yet unverifiable, actors are going to swoop in at the last minute and overrun the corrupt banking cartels, saving us from economic collapse and financial tyranny, then we are essentially being told to stand down and wait for the white knight to come to the rescue. The do-nothing approach.
For those of us in the trenches of 9-5 with bills to pay, we have very little say in what happens with global financial policy at the national and international level. So, rather than stand-by and wait for this unseen hand to reveal itself as our savior, it is more empowering and productive to participate in exposing the financial fraudsters, while exploring tangible, perhaps even local alternatives to exchanging in fiat dollars.
In doing so, we just might stumble upon a verifiable means of co-existing here on planet earth without the reptilian need to accumulate and hoard permission slips of paper issued by corrupt tyrants and soulless bureaucrats.
Isaac Davis is an outspoken advocate of liberty and an honest society from the top down. He is a contributing writer for WakingTimes.com
This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.
*******
Former Presidents Warn About the “Invisible Government” Running the United States
Ross Pittman, Guest
Waking Times
September 13, 2013
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”– George Santayana
Past presidents of the United States and other high profile political leaders have repeatedly issued warnings over the last 214 years that the U.S. government is under the control of an “invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
According to six of our former presidents, one vice-president, and a myriad of other high profile political leaders, an invisible government that is “incredibly evil in intent” has been in control of the U.S. government “ever since the days of Andrew Jackson” (since at least 1836).  They “virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties… It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”
As a result, “we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”
The sources for the above quotes (and more) are listed below. All of the quotes in this article have been verified as authentic and have associated links to the source materials.  Also included below are statements made by David Rockefeller, Sr, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Federal Reserve Chairman’s Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke that appear to confirm some of the warnings.
Warnings About the Invisible Government Running the U.S.
The warnings listed below, which appear in chronological order, began with our first president – George Washington. The last president to speak out was JFK, who was assassinated. Read what they and other political leaders have said about the invisible government.
George Washington wrote that the Illuminati want to separate the People from their Government
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may… actually had a seperation [sic] of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.” – George Washington, 1st President of the United States (1789–1797), from a letter that Washington wrote on October 24, 1798, which can be found in the Library of Congress.  For an analysis of Washington’s warning, see the article “Library of Congress: George Washington Warns of Illuminati”.
“I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” —Thomas Jefferson, dent of the United States (1801–1809) and principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), in a letter written to John Taylor on May 28, 1816
“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks.” – John C. Calhoun, Vice President (1825-1832) and U.S. Senator, from a speech given on May 27, 1836
Note that it appears that Washington’s and Jefferson’s concerns regarding bankers and separation of the people from the government was realized by 1836.  This fact was confirmed in a letter written by FDR in 1933 (see below) in which he wrote that “a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”  Jackson was the seventh president of the United States (1829-1937).  Calhoun served as Jackson’s vice-president from 1829-1832.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.  To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”— Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)
“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.” – Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something.  They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” – Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”  – New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, New York Times, March 26, 1922
“Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt…Mr. Chairman, when the Federal Reserve act was passed, the people of the United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here… and thatthis country was to supply financial power to an international superstate — a superstate controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together toenslave the world for their own pleasure.” – Congressman Louis T. McFadden, from a speech delivered to the House of Representatives on June 10, 1932
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945), in a letter to Colonel Edward M House dated November 21, 1933, as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945.
“Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means… We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government… This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century… This group…is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.” – Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”  —J. Edgar Hoover, The Elks Magazine, 1956
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings… Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only saythat the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.” — John F Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, from a speech delivered to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 and known as the “Secret Society” speech (click here for full transcript and audio).
“The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world.  Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” Congressman Larry P. McDonald, November 1975, from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File.
“There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.” – Daniel K. Inouye, US Senator from Hawaii, testimony at the Iran Contra Hearings, 1986
The Federal Reserve
“A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves…” – John C. Calhoun
“… owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” – Theodore Roosevelt
“… one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank.“  – Louis T. McFadden
In an interview with Jim Lehrer that was aired on PBS’ News Hour on September 18, 2007 that you can watch on YouTube, formal Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said, essentially, that the Federal Reserve was above the law and that no agency of government can overrule their actions:
Jim Lehrer: “What is the proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and a president of the United States?”
Alan Greenspan: “Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.”
The fact that the Fed is above the law was demonstrated by current Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, during his appearance before Congress on March 4, 2009 (as shown in this video). Senator Bernie Sanders asked Bernanke about $2.2 trillion in American tax dollars that was lent out by Federal Reserve. Bernanke refused to provide an answer:
Senator Sanders: “Will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars? … Can you tell us who they are?”
Bernanke: “No”
David Rockefeller and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
“We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…” – William Jenner
“The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world.” – Larry P. McDonald
In 1921 the stockholders of the Federal Reserve financed an organization called the “Council on Foreign Relations” (CFR).  A full discussion on the CFR is beyond the scope of this article.  Suffice it to say that the CFR likely plays a prominent role in the invisible government that we have been warned about. The CFR is alleged to be the arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members. The CFR uses its influence to push their New World Order agenda on the American people.
David Rockefeller, Sr is the current patriarch of the Rockefeller family. He is the only surviving grandchild of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil.  Rockefeller began a lifelong association with the CFR when he joined as a director in 1949.  In Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote:
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. 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.”
James Warburg, son of CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] founder Paul Warburg, delivered blunt testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17, 1950:
“We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”
Cognitive Dissonance
“The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”  —J. Edgar Hoover
Because of a deep rooted beliefs that the U.S. government is “for the people” and the protector of the free world, many will reject the notion of an evil shadow government.  When our beliefs are challenged or when two beliefs are inconsistent, cognitive dissonance is created. It’s human nature to try to hold our beliefs in harmony with our world view and avoid disharmony (or dissonance).
For those of you who having difficulty believing the information presented in this article, I fully  understand.  For the first 57 years of my life, I would not have believed in the possibility that a shadow government could exist.  Three years ago my world view changed. While on vacation in Mount Shasta, I came across a book titled “Global Conspiracy” that seemed strangely out of place in a metaphysical book store.  I had never heard of the author before – some guy named David Icke.  I scanned through the book and frankly didn’t believe 99% of what I read.  But, I saw one thing that caught my attention in that I knew that I could easily verify Icke’s assertion.  I did my own research and turned out what Icke had stated was true.  That led me down a rabbit hole and many, many hundreds of hours of independent research.
So, keep an open mind, do your own research, and use discernment.   Beware that there is a ton of disinformation on the internet, much of which is intentionally placed to confuse the public.  At a CFR meeting on geoengineering (see the article “Millions Spent to Confuse Public About Geoengineering“),  M. Granger Morgan stated (it’s captured on video for you to see and hear for yourself): 
“First of all, of course, there is a lot of money getting spent to make sure that a very substantial portion of the public stays totally confused about this. And, I mean, it’s been really quite pernicious. But there’s been literally tens of millions of dollars spent on every little thing that comes along that might, you know, relate to some uncertainty.”
What Can We Do?
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead
In addition to doing your own research, please spread the word, and get involved. The Thrive Solutions Hub is an excellent place to join with others who are taking positive action steps expose corruption and to create a world in which we can all thrive. You can watch the full Thrive movie on YouTube here.
*******
Icelander's Force Accountability for Banks - Why Can't We?
George Lakey, Contributorf
Waking Times
June 7, 2012
Ever since Iceland’s economy collapsed in 2008, the country has been busy reinventing itself. The first step was to restore democracy through a turbulent nonviolent struggle, then to force resignations in the financial sector and secure a criminal conviction of their prime minister for dereliction of duty. Now they are exploring getting a new currency: the Canadian dollar.
If Icelanders think their traditional money has lost its legitimacy, why not adopt the euro or the U.S. dollar? Too much influence from the big banks of Europe and the U.S., they believe. Better to risk interference from the smaller and much better-regulated banks of Canada. (Canada, like the publicly-owned state bank of North Dakota, did far better in the 2008 crisis than most of the U.S. and Europe.)
For decades, Iceland was part of the “Nordic model” of social democracy, with the high standards of living, free university education, universal health care, full employment and other benefits. Like Norway and Sweden, in the late 1980s the Icelanders flirted with neoliberalism, but unlike their Viking cousins they went all the way. The right-wing party privatized banks, cut regulations and lowered the corporate tax rate. The banks, in turn, created a bubble through hysterical foreign borrowing, and the bubble broke in September 2008. Banks failed. Unemployment and inflation shot up, and crisis reigned.
In mid-October, the singer/songwriter Hörður Torfason stood in the public square in the capitol of Reykjavik with an open microphone, inviting passersby to speak. Every Saturday people gathered to speak and protest, to the point where 2,000 people gathered outside the parliament building on January 20. They banged pots and pans to disrupt the meeting of parliament – the “Kitchenware Revolution,” they called it.
The crowds grew to 10,000 — out of a total population of 320,000! — and the increasing turbulence forced Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde to announce that he and his cabinet would resign and new elections would be held. Although politicians responsible for Iceland’s financial life were resigning, the campaigners didn’t stop there; they demanded — and won — the resignation of the governing board of the Central Bank.
The social democrats came back into power and started to clean up the mess, with help from Sweden and Norway. Iceland was hurt and people had tough times. However, the social democrats refused to do what capitalist wizards expected. Instead of trying to pacify international investors, Iceland created controls on the movement of capital. Instead of initiating an austerity program, the government expanded its social safety net.
According to The New York Times, “Some economists have argued that the collapse of its banks forced the country to deal with its problems faster and aided a swifter recovery.” Iceland’s economy is expected to grow 2.5 percent this year and next.
But the mood of the cheated Icelanders was not, “Let’s move on.”
In March, Iceland opened a criminal trial against its former prime minister. Continues the same Times article:
Mr. Haarde was charged, in effect, with doing too little to protect the country against the depredations of its bankers as they pursued wildly expansionary lending that resulted in financial disaster for the country.
Haarde was found guilty. Former executives of the failed Kaupthing Bank have also been indicted.
The movement of Icelanders that rejected a European Union-style austerity program and instead put accountability where it belonged did not come out of thin air. Even while some Icelanders were trying to buy glamour through neoliberalism, others spent the years between 2000 and 2006 protesting the Karahnjukar hydropower project that the Icelandic 1 percent sponsored along with the Alcoa and Bechtel corporations.
Decades before that eco-justice campaign, Icelandic women shut down most of the nation for a day in 1975 to force passage of a civil-rights bill for women’s equality.
I see two big lessons that the rest of us can learn from the painful Icelandic experience. First, avoid assuming that activism is a “sometimes thing,” to be put aside after major victories are won. Icelandic activists achieved much but then almost lost it. As Canadian labor unions are fond of pointing out, “The struggle continues.”
Second, it is possible to take your country back from the mismanagement of the economic elite if your campaign’s strategy generates broad participation. Iceland mobilized no less than 3 percent of its population in direct action. For U.S. activists, that implies giving serious attention to campaign organizing and generating allies. The model of just occasional “mass bashes” doesn’t cut it.
This article originally appeared at WagingNon-Violence.org, an inspirational source of ideas on non-violent solutions to political issues.  Click here to support their noble efforts.
*******

More About Gun Control!

$
0
0
*******
As Obama Works to Dismantle Gun Rights, North Korea Chases H Bomb!
By John Lillpop -- Bio and Archives 
January 6, 2016
After caving in to Iran’s evil desires to acquire nuclear weapons in order to annihilate Israel and the west, Barack Obama has turned his vast intelligence and moral mandate to the noble cause of denying law-abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms.
Because he lacks the native ability and desire to work within the framework of the US Constitution, Obama has issued Executive Orders to usurp Congress and the law in this vital area of governance.
Tragically, because of his egomaniacal over-estimation of his intellect and moral authority, Barack Obama is unable to see that his tyrannical acts are precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists—-to empower the American people with the mechanism needed to assure that government remains, “For and by the people,” rather than a personal play toy in the hands of a delusional egotist who actually believes his own press clippings
Even more tragically is that while Obama wages Jihad against the 2nd Amendment, evil doers in North Korea are taking advantage of our distracted leader by forging ahead with development of advanced nuclear weapons technology.
The end result is that while Obama may eventually pummel the NRA and law-abiding American gun owners into submission, North Korea and Iran may lead the world down the slippery slope of nuclear annihilation.
Once again, Obama’s incompetence is exceeded only by his hatred for American values and people!
John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California
*******
New Year, Same Obama: There's Gun Control To Demand
By Cheryl Chumley

January 5, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
New Year, new executive order. That's how President Obama's ringing in 2016 – with a robust toast to his own power and hubris, and simultaneous glass tink and eye wink at the Second Amendment.
By the middle of January, Obama will have made his move, most political watchers say. And what a move it will be. As Bloomberg Business reported: "Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years' Day, he plans to follow through on plans to expand the definition of who's 'in the business' of selling firearms – and who's thus required to perform background checks."
That means if you want to sell your gun to your neighbor, under Obama's new order, you'll need to first pass an executive-mandated background check from the federal authorities. And I say executive-mandated because the policy won't be congressionally approved. This so-called closing of the gun show loophole – where ddealers who sell commercially are currently subjected to the federal background checks' process, but not those who sell from their own personal collections' is Obama's pet, through and through.
It's yet another presidential bypass of Congress, the duly elected, the electorate, and by extension, the Constitution. Call it the Obama Special – the pen annd phone approach to governance – the modern day way of legislating in Ameriica.
How long must we suffer? Obama's bully politics are birthed of a nation that's turned from God – and when God doesn't lead, look out. Government will. And it'll be with heavy hands. That's what we're experiencing in rapid fashion under this current administration. Can't pass immigration reform? Call in the executive order. Can't get Congress to agree on climate change policy? No problem-o. Pick up the pen and push environmental regulations and dictates for the federal government to follow and businesses to abide. Then press the EPA to ram through those same executive desires. Can't move reforms on Capitol Hill to control police and halt perceived biased policing against blacks? Call on the Justice Department to initiate a plan that basically federalizes civilian, community police departments via a carrot-stick, funding-for-data-collection dictate.
It's amazing what a president can accomplish these days.
That's why Sen. Rand Paul's legislation limiting the president from passing executive orders that curb the Second Amendment is so interesting, not to mention timely. His bill, the Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act, S. 2434, not only relegates such executive orders on gun control to "advisory" status, meaning no action can occur unless Congress first considers and approves it. It also allows those who are negatively affected by any executive action against guns to file a civil lawsuit "to challenge the validity of [the] executive action," the text of the bill states.
It's currently on fast-track status, with a hoped-for Senate hearing right after the holiday recess. And Paul introduced it with this fanfare: "In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution. We also have a Second Amendment and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it."
Indeed he will. In fact, indeed he has. Paul introduced the same legislation in 2013, as S. 82. And guess what happened? After Sens. Mike Lee and John Boozman signed on as cosponsors – the only two to do so – the bill headed for the Senate for a first reading, then a second reading, and then death due to inaction.
So Paul's pulled the draft out of his desk for another try. Well, good for him. Thumbs-up and gold stars all around, as well as a heartfelt hope the bill will actually pass this time.
But when any politician, well-meaning or otherwise, tries to tell the American public that the United States does not have a king, the proper response is to laugh. Why? It's wisdom in motion. One need only look to Obama to see how far our Constitution has shifted – and how long-gone our notion of a constrained executiive branch has drifted.
© 2016 Cheryl Chumley - All Rights Reserved
Cheryl K. Chumley, a news writer with WND.com and former news staffer with the Washington Times, is also the author of "Police State USA: How Orwell's Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality." She may be reached on Twitter at @ckchumley, or through her blog, cherylchumley.blogspot.com.

*******
Gun Control and the No-Fly List
Part 1 of 2
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
January 5, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
In the political realm, as elsewhere, evil never sleeps. And apparently there is no enormity which the present rogue régime in the Disgrace of Columbia, and equally rogue régimes in certain States, are not capable of, and not intent upon, committing with the expectation that sheepish Americans will remain somnolent and submissive until it is too late for them to recognize the danger and set about resisting it. The latest piece of “in-your-face” effrontery is an extension of these régimes’ never-ending push for systematic “gun control” aimed at the thoroughgoing disarmament of Americans—the goal so pithily and provocatively expressed in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s words: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” In his recent televised address following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, the present resident in the White House, Barack Obama, asked “What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?” and urged that “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.” Shortly thereafter, Governor
Dannel Malloy of Connecticut announced that he would sign an “executive order” directing the Connecticut State Police, not only to prevent individuals on “the no-fly list” from buying firearms or ammunition in the future, but also to revoke those individuals’ permits for firearms they already possess. These actions are open to the obvious questions: “What is Mr. Obama’s definition of a ‘terrorist’?”, “Under what theory of constitutional due process can a mere ‘suspect’ be denied a right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution?”, and “How can a mere ‘executive order’ override the Second Amendment?” But, assuming for the purposes of argument that in some conceivable circumstances an individual suspected of “terrorism” could be denied “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms” (as, for example, because he were under arrest preliminary to being arraigned under a constitutionally valid criminal charge), what could possibly be the justification for employing a “bill of attainder” to deny that right to all “suspects” whom some nameless, faceless bureaucrats had included in some “list”, based on perhaps utterly fanciful definitions of “terrorism” known only to them? For the undeniable constitutional fact is that “the no-fly list” (and any other “list” of that genre) is an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”.
In general, an “attainder” is an act which extinguishes some or all of an individual’s civil rights. A “bill of attainder” is a legislative act which imposes a sentence of death upon an individual without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. And a “bill of pains of penalties” is a legislative act which imposes a sentence less severe than death upon an individual without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. In Article III, Section 3, Clause 2, the Constitution allows for an “Attainder” in only one instance: “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” But in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, the Constitution requires that “[n]o person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” So an “Attainder of Treason” cannot come about through a “bill of attainder”, because it requires a prior conviction based upon extraordinary evidence in the course of ordinary judicial proceedings. Otherwise, the Constitution absolutely outlaws all “Bill[s] of Attainder”, whether issued by Congress or the States. As to Congress, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 provides that “[n]o Bill of Attainder * * * shall be passed.” As to the States, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 provides that “[n]o State shall * * * pass any Bill of Attainder[.]” These prohibitions apply to both “bills of attainder” and “bills of pains and penalties”. See Ex parte Garland, 74 U.S. (4 Wallace) 333 (1867); Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wallace) 277 (1867); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
As I have explained in detail in previous articles for NewsWithViews—to wit, “Death Squads” and “Where Is the Outrage?”, which dealt with “official assassinations” of individuals on the Obama régime’s supremely secretive “hit list”—no public official in any branch of the General Government may enact, enforce, or otherwise give effect to any “Bill of Attainder” (or “bill of pains and penalties”). To complete the analysis, it is easy enough to prove that no public official in any State may enact or enforce a “Bill of Attainder”, whether that “Bill” purports to derive from the State herself or from the General Government. As already noted, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits all “Bill[s] of Attainder” emanating from a State: “No State shall * * * pass any Bill of Attainder[.]”. To be sure, a State is not the political jurisdiction which has “pass[ed]” “the no-fly list”. But (as in Connecticut) a State might attempt to enforce that “list” against individuals who sought to acquire, or who already possessed, firearms. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, however, that “[n]o State shall * * * enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. “[A]ny law”, not just a purported “law” of the State. According to rogue officials in the General Government, “the no-fly list” is an actual “law” or an official action “with the force of law”. The prohibition against “Bill[s] of Attainder” is one of the constitutional “immunities of citizens of the United States”. Therefore, no State may “enforce” “the no-fly list” for any purpose.
Of course, “the no-fly list” does not explicitly describe itself as a “Bill of Attainder”. In constitutional analysis, though, mere labels mean nothing. See, e.g., Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795-796 (1988); Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 826 (1975); New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 268-269 (1964); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429 (1963). Substance, not form, controls. “The no-fly list” is plainly an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”, because inclusion of an individual automatically denies him the ability to travel by airplane, without any judicial determination that such a disability is justified by some plainly constitutional law. Oh, I know that some apologists argue that flying on commercial airlines is supposedly not a “right”, but instead is a “privilege” which somehow can be extinguished at public officials’ discretion. This is a specious contention. The right to travel, even by air, has both constitutional and statutory foundations. Compare, e.g., Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868), with 49 U.S.C. § 40103. The airlines are common carriers, highly regulated by law, to the services of which all Americans have a claim in common law and various statutes. And the freedom of average Americans to contract with the airlines for passage is part of both parties’ constitutional “liberty” and “property” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. To be sure, “freedom of contract” can in some instances be subjected to constitutional regulations, as (for example) by exertion of Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States”. But no power of Congress may be exercised through a “Bill of Attainder”. In any event, the hypothetical “right/privilege distinction” has no bearing whatsoever on the matter at issue here, which is the invocation of “the no-fly list” for the purpose of denying individuals an explicit constitutional right: namely, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, whether that be to purchase “Arms” in the first instance or simply to retain possession of “Arms” previously acquired by whatever lawful means.
Use of “the no-fly list” as a basis for disqualifying an individual from the purchase or possession of a firearm is quite different from the use, say, of criminal records in a typical “background check” performed by a firearms dealer as the precondition for a sale. Individuals on lists of criminal convictions maintained by the FBI and various State law-enforcement agencies have been indicted, tried, and convicted of serious infractions of the law in the normal course of judicial process. One may debate whether or not the commission of a particular crime by a particular individual is a constitutionally sound basis for denial to him of “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms” (or denials of the right to vote or to hold public office, which often are disabilities that stem from a criminal conviction). But the principle is valid in at least some cases. In contrast, an individual on “the no-fly list” has not been indicted, tried, or convicted of anything. He may be suspected of something—but, even then, the degree of suspicion is not sufficient to warrant his arrest. So the principle involved in “the no-fly list” is invalid in all cases. Criminal records are not “Bill[s] of Attainder”, because a particular legal disability (say, denial of the right to purchase or possess a firearm) arises from the prior presumably justifiable criminal conviction, not from the later listing of the individual as having been convicted . Whereas “the no-fly list” is a “Bill of Attainder”, because whatever legal disabilities it rationalizes arise merely from an individual’s inclusion in that “list”, coupled with a vague implicit prediction that he might misbehave in the future, but with no need for any prior, or subsequent, conviction in a court of law for actual criminal misbehavior.
One need not be the victim of paranoia, only the possessor of a modicum of political insight and foresight, to conclude that the proposal by Mr. Obama that Congress should enact a new species of “gun control” based upon “the no-fly list”, together with the nearly simultaneous announcement by the Governor of Connecticut that he will impose “gun control” in that State perforce of “the no-fly list” through the fiat of an “executive order”, are parts of an integrated complot to test the waters of public opinion in order to determine if Americans will sit silent and still for such a scheme. This is a variant of the well known Leninist tactic of “salami slicing”: here, by installing the most obvious, pervasive, and obnoxious form of “gun control”—actual prohibition of purchase and possession of “Arms”—slowly and steadily, individual by individual, State by State, and then nationwide only after most Americans have been sufficiently “softened up”. And one can rest assured that, if the Governor of Connecticut succeeds in using an “executive order” to apply “the no-fly list” to purchases and possession of firearms in that State, then all too soon Mr. Obama will announce that he, too, can employ an “executive order” for that purpose throughout the United States, without the need for any new statute from Congress.
Perhaps it is merely accidental, albeit ironic, that “gun-control” fanatics have selected Connecticut—which calls herself “the Constitution State”—as their “test bed” for this operation, simply because the upper echelons of that State’s governmental apparatus happen to be infested with home-grown Stalinists and other totalitarians. Or, more ominously, perhaps their choice of “the Constitution State” is intended to demonstrate their belief that they can get away with anything, no matter how plainly contradictory of the Constitution it may be, because common Americans (especially in Connecticut) are just too stupid and cowardly to do anything about it.
Now, in my NewsWithViews commentaries cited above, I have written about “official assassinations” and “Bill[s] of Attainder”—without, I have noticed, any significant result. This may be because vanishingly few Americans imagine that they may become the victims of such an atrocity. As far as they are concerned, such a fate is likely to be visited only upon little brown people in far-away lands, who probably deserve it anyway, because they have the audacity to object to interference by rogue American officials in the internal affairs of what they foolishly imagine are their very own countries, when everyone knows that American officials have an overarching license to interfere in the internal affairs of any country, even to the extent of overthrowing its government, massacring its citizens, destroying its infrastructure, and poisoning its lands with depleted uranium.
But I suggest that a program aimed at the total domestic disarmament of America tomorrow would be arguably worse than the one which allows “official assassinations” today, because no one can imagine that such assassinations might ever be conducted against the general populace throughout the United States, or even that the present resident of the White House would dare openly to claim a prerogative to kill just anyone and everyone whom his minions had inscribed on some “list” of proscribed individuals.
The total domestic disarmament of America, in contrast, aims at no less than the assassination of “a free State” for everyone within the United States—because just about everyone could be, and in the predictable course of events no doubt would become, a target. Once the “gun-control” fanatics finally succeeded in disarming all, or even most, Americans, the number of political murders and other enormities could, and would, be raised to whatever level the tyrants wanted, without fear of effective (or perhaps any) resistance on the victims’ part—just as has occurred during the last century in country after country in which systematic “gun control” has been imposed.

Part 2 of 2

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
January 5, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
Moreover, the salami-slicing tactic of gradually insinuating “gun control” throughout America by the attainder of individuals is not limited to the use of the present “no-fly list”. That is merely the first slice, and certainly one too thin for achieving the ultimate purpose of the exercise. In the nature of things, once the principle has been established, “gun control” by attainder can and will employ any and every “list”, based upon any and every imaginable theory of ineligibility—whether the listed individuals are denounced as “terrorists”, or extremists”, or “subversives, or “dissidents”, or by some other opprobrious epithet (including, no doubt, anyone who dares to deny the supposed power of “the government” to employ the tactic of “listing” itself). Everyone with access to the Internet knows that today’s “homeland-security” bureaucrats at every level of the federal system, and the subversive private organizations with which they regularly interact, entertain all sorts of truly crackpot notions as to who qualifies as an “extremist”, or a potential “domestic terrorist”, or a “home-grown terrorist”—including those Americans who identify themselves as “patriots” (because they love their country), as “constitutionalists” (because they believe in the rule of law), or as opponents of a “new world order” (because they defend the Declaration of Independence). Everyone is entitled, as well, to suspect that the “homeland-security” establishment is even now compiling extensive “lists” of Americans whom some bureaucrats and private organizations want to shoe-horn into such categories. Rogue politicians and bureaucrats may deny that these “lists” exist. But no sensible individual believes any such imposture, in light of the long-standing false denials by the FBI and the TSA that “the no-fly list” existed. See Laura K. Donohue, The Cost of Counterterrorism: Power, Politics, and Liberty (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2008), at 254.
In addition, one can expect that “gun-control” fanatics will run to the red lines their engines of deceitful propaganda and hysterical agitation, not simply (as they always have done in the past) to demonize as a run-of-the-mill “extremist” anyone who supports “the right * * * to keep and bear Arms”, but also to denounce as an extraordinarily clear and present danger to society everyone who holds “fundamentalist” views about the Second Amendment, who manifests “intolerance” of “gun control”, or who expresses “hatred” for “gun controllers”—and to demand that such people be denied that right precisely because of their zealous promotion of it and their uncompromising opposition to its detractors. In a stupendous display of ideological jiu jitsu, the big “mainstream media” and their allies across the Internet will transform an individual’s support for “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” into an excuse for denying that very individual that very right for that very reason. And this tsunami of “politically correct” invective will rationalize the creation of what amounts to “no-gun lists” for suspected “domestic terrorists”, to be enforced through “executive orders” according to the precedents soon to be set by Connecticut’s Governor Malloy and others of his ilk. All of which is already beginning to move forward in high gear (just as if it had been planned well ahead of time).
Interestingly enough, the ACLU has, with some success, been attacking “the no-fly list” in theGeneral Government’s courts. Unfortunately, its approach to the problem has been faulty. In an Internet article from the ACLU entitled “Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms” (7 December 2015), Hina Shamsi, the Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, reports that the organization is litigating a case in which it demands that the General Government provide individuals with notice of their inclusion in “the no-fly list”, a statement of the reasons for that inclusion, and an opportunity for a hearing on the matter before a neutral decision-maker. The self-evident confusion here, however, is that the courts enjoy no power to “fix” a “Bill of Attainder” by applying ex post some remedial processes in order to mitigate its rigors while still allowing its existence and operation to continue. Rather, the duty of the courts is to strike down in law and render ineffective in fact each and every “Bill of Attainder” in its entirety right then and there. The Constitution’s prohibitions of “Bill[s] of Attainder” do not say that a “Bill” is permissible if it (or some court reviewing it) provides notice, reasons, and a hearing for a listed individual. The Constitution absolutely prohibits all “Bill[s] of Attainder”, no matter what purported procedural “safeguards” they may originally contain or may have grafted onto them in the course of litigation. The reason for this is obvious: The harms which a “Bill of Attainder” causes—namely, the supposed legal disabilities it imposes on the individuals it lists—occur as soon as the “Bill” comes into existence. The rights of listed individuals are lost or otherwise compromised at that moment, according to the very definition of a “Bill of Attainder”. True enough, procedural “safeguards” might allow for those rights to be regained at a later date, but always at substantial costs in time, effort, and expense imposed on the targets of the “Bill”. Moreover, as the ACLU’s own litigation demonstrates, the burden of seeking to set up procedural “safeguards”, so that the effect of a “Bill of Attainder” is not as bad as it might otherwise be, always rests squarely on the victims’ shoulders. This is an intolerable imposition, inasmuch as, being absolutely unconstitutional, a “Bill of Attainder” is utterly void ab initio. A “Bill of Attainder” can no more be transformed into a constitutional creation by a court’s application of ex post procedural “safeguards” than Frankenstein’s Monster can be transformed into Miss America by a make-up artist’s generous application of lipstick, rouge, and eye-liner.
Reliance on the ACLU’s strategy would have especially perverse effects in a situation in which “the no-fly list” were employed, as Governor Malloy threatens to employ it, for the purpose of stripping individuals of the possession of firearms they already own. Consider the following scenario: Having discovered that Jones is included in “the no-fly list”, the Connecticut State Police descend on his home, armed with some jury-rigged administrative process based upon Malloy’s “executive order”, which purports to empower them to seize Jones’ firearms and ammunition sine die. If he is not shot to death by a gun-crazy SWAT team executing the raid, Jones must then initiate some sort of judicial proceeding in order to recover his property. While he is doing so (if his financial situation enables him to hire a competent attorney), the police destroy or otherwise dispose of his firearms and ammunition as supposed “contraband” or “forfeited” property (perhaps by turning those items over to some rogue agency of the General Government, which then black-markets the material to Mexican drug cartels or to “moderate” jihadi terrorists in the Middle East). So, even if Jones eventually does prevail in court, the most he can obtain from the official malefactors of the State of Connecticut is monetary damages, not his firearms. In overall effect, he will be completely disarmed until he can purchase new arms—which, in the case of so-called “assault rifles”, Connecticut’s new law (recently upheld on typically specious grounds by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) makes difficult. So, at least for a while—and perhaps for quite a while at that—Jones’ “right * * * to keep and bear Arms” will be palpably “infringed”. That this scenario could be extended throughout the State of Connecticut (and any other State, for that matter), limited only by how extensive were the various “lists” rogue agencies of the General Government had compiled, shows how dangerous to “the security of a free State” the situation could become.
Of course, patriots need not worry about the involvement of the ACLU in such a situation, because that organization is unlikely to challenge rogue public officials’ use of “the no-fly list” (or any other “list” of that genre) to disarm common Americans. As Hina Shamsi reports in the article cited above, according to the ACLU “[t]here is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.” In this, she seems to be following sotto voce Justice Breyer’s anti-constitutional dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Contrary to both her and Justice Breyer, though, there most assuredly is a “constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns”, as the two of them understand “reasonable regulation”—that is, any “regulation of guns” which rogue public officials deem “reasonable” (including, one supposes, outright confiscation). The Second Amendment declares what constitutes the only “reasonable regulation of guns”: namely, that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, where the term “Arms” includes any and every type of “Arms” and related accoutrements which could serve any conceivable purpose in “[a] well regulated Militia”. And “the No Fly List could [not] serve as [any] tool for [the reasonable regulation of guns]”, because “the no-fly list” is a “Bill of Attainder”, which is absolutely unconstitutional and void, no matter what sort of “major reform” might arguably be applied to it.
But what about the National Rifle Association in this brouhaha? Disappointingly, although not unpredictably, the NRA approaches this problem from the same wrong direction as the ACLU. In an Internet article from POLITICO entitled “Administration keeps up media barrage on terror fight” (8 December 2015), Josh Gerstein quotes an NRA spokeswoman as saying that “[t]he NRA’s only objective is to ensure that law-abiding American citizens who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process.” If this reference to “due process” means that “the no-fly list” should be declared an unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder”, root and branch and at one fell swoop, well and good. But it probably means “due process” only in the sense the ACLU understands “due process” in this situation: namely, as requiring notice, reasons, and a hearing which might serve to remove individuals from the “list” in the course of litigation, on a tedious and uncertain case-by-case basis.
So, what should be done? If litigation simply had to be pursued, the logical parties to initiate it would be firearms dealers in Connecticut, who would file suit as soon as Governor Malloy issued his threatened “executive order”. The theory of their case would be straightforward: The dealers are licensed by the General Government (specifically, by the BATFE). Although the products of governmental regulations (the constitutionality of which need not be explored here), their licenses constitute valuable “property”, entitled to constitutional protection. These licenses grant statutory rights to the dealers to enter into contracts with citizens for the purchase and sale of firearms and ammunition. The dealers and their customers also have constitutional “liberty” and “property” rights of contract recognized by the Constitution. All of these rights, whatever their sources, are “civil rights” under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1988(b) and (c). The employment by public officials in Connecticut of “the no-fly list” (or any other such “list”) in order to preclude the dealers from selling arms to an entire class of individuals, none of whom has ever been judicially determined to be lawfully disabled from purchasing firearms or ammunition, is unconstitutional on its face, under both Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment thereto, and for that reason deprives the dealers of their “civil rights”, along with the economic benefits which would accrue to them from their unrestricted exercise and enjoyment of those rights. Those deprivations entitle them (in judicial jargon, afford them “standing”) to sue Malloy, the Connecticut State Police, and any other public officials involved in the use of “the no-fly list”, seeking a declaratory judgement, injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorneys’ fees.
To be sure, a suit of this sort would inevitably encounter practical difficulties—not the least of which would be the various claims of “official immunity” the defendants would interpose. Nonetheless, perhaps such a strategy will appeal to the NRA, which, in the manner of a compulsive gambler, apparently cannot restrain itself from betting the Second Amendment’s farm, time and again, on yet another spin of the roulette wheel of litigation.
Yet the NRA would be wise to recall that in roulette the odds always strongly favor the house, even if the croupier does not apply a greasy finger to the wheel. But when it comes to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, are contemporary judges as honest as the croupiers in the average casino? After all, on the basis of its past performances, who can trust the General Government’s Judiciary in general—especially within the Second Circuit? Or, for that matter, who can trust the Supreme Court in particular, which is but a single Justice’s vote away from endorsing Justice Breyer’s “reasonable regulation” theory of the Second Amendment?
Of course, there is another route by which to secure the benefits of the Second Amendment with respect, not just to individuals’ rights to self-defense (upon which the NRA is fixated), but also to “the security of a free State” for this country as a whole (which is the Amendment’s true goal). Having written more than enough about that elsewhere, I shall refrain from repeating myself here.
© 2016 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). 
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.  
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us 
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630. 
E-Mail: Not available
*******
*******
AB 1014 - "Shall Issue" Gun Violence Restraining Orders in California
Published on May 30, 2014
AB 1014 (Skinner/Williams) would allow ANY PERSON to have your gun rights taken away simply because they feel you are a threat.
*******
California To Allow Government To Seize People’s Guns Starting Jan. 1 Under New Law
By Antiphon Freeman
December 30, 2015
A new California law (AB 1014) is set to take effect on January 1, 2016. Specifically, it will allow concerned family members or law enforcement officers to petition a court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) in situations where an individual is deemed to either “be a threat” or have the “potential for threatening behavior.” After the petition is submitted, a judge will be empowered to make the call, i.e. if there are sufficient enough reasons to warrant a person’s gun and ammo to be taken away from them and the judge deems the person a threat, it will be.
It’s a perfectly logical law, actually. It’s about time a legal mechanism was put in place to allow for the seizure of guns in cases where it makes sense to do so. The rest of the country needs to follow California’s lead – it could prevent another mass shooting or suicide.
Los Angeles Police Assistant Chief Michael Moore told Southern California Public Radio:
“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will. It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”
Current law in the state already prevents dangerous people from possessing firearms, including domestic abusers and individuals committed to mental health facilities. This new law just expands who is eligible to have their gun taken away.
Yes, this means a member of the police will show up to a person’s house and forcibly take their gun away. Right-wingers worst fears have finally come true. Now, before they get their panties all up in a wad and cry “unconstitutional,” this isn’t meant to be permanent. It’s only meant to be a restraining order for a set amount of time, typically 21 days, or even longer if a person is deemed unfit to have the weapon (by a judge).
And, yes, this new law is constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Many laws are permissible under the Second Amendment that prohibit weapons, including those by felons and the mentally ill – there’s a long track record for this.
This law makes sense once you read it. It’s a new outlet for allowing a family member to take action if they feel real harm is imminent to others or even the person owning the weapon – it’s not meant to be a vehicle that only the government can use. Although, they will be able to do so as well.
AB 1014 was first proposed after the shooting that took place in Isla Vista in May 2014. The shooter, in that case, had given all the right signs of being a threat, but no legal mechanism was available for anyone to take action. AB 1014 will finally change that.
Featured image via blogs.sacbee
*******

The Coming Global Collapse in 2016! (Part 1)

$
0
0
*******


This Is It. Collapse Is Here. -- Bill Holter 
Published on Jan 17, 2016
Bill Holter from JS Mineset joins us to cover the unfolding global economic collapse. "This is it. We're watching the meltdown. This is history being made." Bill says.
Holter explains, "The Fed has lied themselves into a corner. They raised rates and here we are a month later, the system is imploding and they have no bullets left. They are going to have to do QE4, they are going to have to do negative interest rates."
"I believe this is it. The margin call, the meltdown, we're watching it in real time... I guess the best way to look at where we are right now is, we're standing at the gates of Hell."
 
*******

Gerald Celente-2016 Predictions, Gold, Silver War and Collapse  
Published on Dec 6, 2015
On global war, trends researcher Gerald Celente says, “Unfortunately, when all else fails, they take us to war. Look, go back to 1929 and the market crash. You had market crashes, Great Depression, currency wars, trade wars, world war. Voila, here we are again. Panic of ‘08, Great Recession, currency wars world war. . . . When the market collapses, the war talk will heat up.”
Gold and silver are running counter to other commodities. Why? Celente says, “Demand is up for gold and silver. To me, it is the ultimate safe haven. I’ve been saying since 2012 and 2013 that the bottom for gold is about $1,050 an ounce. I gave that number out because that’s about what it costs to pull it out of the ground. . . . Gold is about planning for the worst.” 
So, is the spike in gold and silver demand a precursor to the next crash, which Celente is predicting to be coming soon? Celente says, “I totally believe so. . . . It’s definitely worse now. Look at the bubble they created.”
*******

Bail-Ins Have Begun! Banks Will Soon Shut Down!!!  
Published on Jan 4, 2016
*******

Celente Reveals What You're Not Being Told About the 2016 Financial Crisis
Published on Jan 15, 2016
Sub for more: http://nnn.is/the_new_media | Gerald Celente, returns to join Gary Franchi on the Next News Network to disclose the truth behind the 2016 stock market crash and how to brace yourself and protect your family in the face of economic calamity. See: http://trendsresearch.com/
*******

What Will Happen When The Dollar Collapse In 19 Feb 2016  
Published on Dec 23, 2015
The dollar collapse will be the single largest event in human history. This will be the first event that will touch every single living person in the world. All human activity is controlled by money. Our wealth,our work,our food,our government,even our relationships are affected by money.
No money in human history has had as much reach in both breadth and depth as the dollar. It is the de facto world currency. All other currency collapses will pale in comparison to this big one. All other currency crises have been regional and there were other currencies for people to grasp on to.
dollar collapse 2015,dollar collapse and ww3,dollar collapse 2016,dollar collapse today,news,Black friday,economy,politics,obama,america,us­,world,war,liberty,amtv,alternative,medi­a,economic collapse,us dollar collapse,dollar collapse,World Bank,IMF,new world order,world war 3,Barack Obama (US President),Bitcoin,Silver,Gold,Federal Reserve,China,Russia,WW3,SGT Report,Putin,Peter Schiff,Dollar crash,Dollar Ponzi,Bankers,Nuke,Central Bank,Yuan,dollar,Crisis,Euro
*******

US Dollar Collapse Feb 2016
Published on Dec 20, 2015
American Dollar Failing in Feb 2016 . The dollar collapse will be the single largest event in human history. This will be the first event that will touch every single .
*******

When The Dollar Collapse In USA Troops Will Fire On American Citizens During Civil Unrest
Published on Dec 4, 2015
*******

Bill Bonner Interview: hold on to your cash, the real financial crisis is yet to come
Published on Sep 16, 2015
MoneyWeek’s editor in chief Merryn Somerset Webb talks to Bill Bonner about economic cycles and the ‘cashless society’
*******

The Economic Collapse For Dummies
Published on Jul 21, 2012
*******

World Economic Collapse explained
Uploaded on Nov 6, 2011
*******
Also See:
The Coming Global Collapse in 2015!
 (Part 1)
14 October 2015
and
(Part 2)
02 November 2015
and
Food Shortage, Then Anarchy!
(Part 2)
03 September 2014
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
(Part 2)
28 September 2013
and
Are We Facing a Global Financial Crisis?
31 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/are-we-facing-global-financial-crisis.html
and
Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse!

(Part 1)
31 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse.html
and
(Part 2)
20 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 3)

25 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and

(Part 4)
17 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and

(Part 5)
23 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and

(Part 6)
23 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and

(Part 7)
30 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/xxxx.html
and
(Part 8)
23 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/debt-dynamite-dominoes-coming-financial.html
and
(Part 9)
28 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 10)
13 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 11)
29 April 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 12)
28 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 13)
04 April 2012
(Part 15)
02 November 2012
and
(Part 16)
23 April 2015
and
Recession? ... Depression? ... What is Going On?
(Part 1)
06 October 2008
(Part 2)
02 February 2009
and
(Part 3)
19 April 2009
and
(Part 4)
02 August 2009
and
(Part 5)
17 September 2010
and
(Part 6)
17 September 2010
and
(Part 7)
23 July 2014
and
Jobs, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?
(Part 1)
20 April 2010
and
The Poor - Prosperity Creates Poverty! 
(Part 1) 
and
(Part 2)
13 November 2013
and
How Do We Eradicate Poverty?
27 November 2012
and
Financial Crisis! The Culprit? Volatility in the Bond Markets!
14 May 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/05/financial-crisis-culprit-volatility-in.html
*******

What About Immigration? Propaganda and Genocide!

$
0
0
*******

Putin Discusses White Genocide
Published on Mar 12, 2014
Google the Kaufmann, Morgenthau and Hooton plan.
Three detailed plans for the Extermination of the German people written by Jews.
Sterilization and Immigration are the methods described.
Food additives and vaccines almost without exception affect fertility and brainfunctions.
Sound weird ? Yes ,but why do muslims birthrate drop like a rock when they move to European countries ?
Additives by jewish controlled firms like Monsanto, and jewish Jonas Salk (polio) started the wave of vaccines. Most if not all vaccines turns out were issued after the deseases had declined on their own.
Jewish organisations like the ADL have been pushing immigration into white countries (but not into Israel)
Have the exterminationplans against the Germans been modified and now turned on the entire white (Christian) culture ?
Check out Dr. David Kelly and Joseph Moshe from the links further down.
Also google the Sampson Option.
http://www.sott.net/article/212776-Et...http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/t...http://www.unfictional.com/joseph-mos...
Research: Jewish Ritual Murder, Jewish Ritual Murder Revisited, Jura Lina The Jewish Hand in Bolshevism, The Other Israel, The Jewish conspiracy, Understanding anti-semitism, The Khazarian Conspiracy, A Devil in disguise, Auschwitz the Missing Cyanide, Judea declares war on Germany, Dumb portrayal of evil Buchenwald, David Cole at Auschwitz, One third of the holocaust, Auschwitz why the gas-chambers are a myth, The last days of the big lie, The persecution of Revisionists, Benjamin Freedman's 1961 Speech at the Willard Hotel, The Money Masters, (Videos)
Germany Must Perish by Theodore Kaufmann
Other losses and Crimes and mercies by
James Baque(Books)
Google "Jews and bolshevism"
Google "Eisenhowers deathcamps"
Google "The Morgenthau plan""The Kaufmann plan""The Hooton plan" (Still in effect ?)
David Irvings books and research on WW2
David Dukes research on jewish history and Zionism and his book "Jewish Supremacism"
Dr. William Luther Pierces inspiring videos and programs on Race preservation.
Jared Taylor on Race and Crime.
Research names : Ilya Ehrenburg, Lavrenty Beria, Theodore Herzl and the Talmud teachings.
Jewish Bolsheviks Lazar Kaganovitch, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev (Ukrainian Genocide), Sverdlov (Tsar family butcher)
Hope you will find it interesting.
http://www.armahellas.com/?p=1937
http://www.zundelsite.org/
http://www.vho.org/
http://nazigassings.com/
http://codoh.com/
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/http://www.ihr.org/main/links.shtml
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html
http://juergen-graf.vho.org/books/ind...http://www.politicalforum.com/history...
http://www.whale.to/b/starvation_of_g...
http://gblt.webs.com/Real_Holocaust.htm
http://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.no/...
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ge...
http://zioncrimefactory.com/http://holywar.org/http://www.radioislam.org/http://freddyweb4.wordpress.com/entla...http://www.npd-goettingen.de/Deutschl...http://www.politikforen.net/showthrea...http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/
http://www.deutscherosten.de/index.htm
http://nsl-archiv.net/Filme/Nach-1945/http://nsl-lager.com/ht/http://www.recht-zur-verteidigung.org/
*******

The Endgame - Full White Genocide documentary  
Published on Feb 24, 2015
Want to read more about White Genocide?http://whitegenocideproject.com/about...
Thanks to Bob Whitaker, (http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/) Horus the avenger (http://whiterabbitradio.net/), John Friend, Sinead McCarthy, Lana Lokteff (http://www.redicecreations.com/radio3...) and more for the narrator-voices.
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
*******
White Genocide Conspiracy Theory
From Wikipedia
White genocide is a political slogan, associated with the White nationalist movement, for the conspiracy theory that mass third worldimmigration, integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion is being promoted in predominantly white countries to deliberately turn them minority-white and hence cause white people to go extinct. The phrase "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white", coined by high-profile white nationalist Robert Whitaker, is commonly associated to the topic of white genocide.
While opinions may vary on the underlying cause of the phenomenon; Jewish influence and people who hate whites, along with liberal political forces are commonly cited as the main factors leading to white genocide. This view is held by prominent figures such asDavid Duke, who cites Jews and "liberal political ideals" as the main cause. High profile white nationalist, Robert Whitaker, has employed the term 'anti-White' to describe to those he believes are responsible, and he has singled out Jews as a contributing force. David Lane, of the organization The Order, which existed from 1984–85, wrote about this conspiracy theory in his White Genocide Manifesto, in an account critiquing race-mixing, abortion, homosexuality, the legal repercussions against those who "resist genocide" and also the "Zionist Occupation Government" that controls America and the once-white countries that encourage "white genocide". It is rooted in "doctrines of universalism both secular and religious" according to Lane, and may have been a factor which led to the murder of anti-Nazi Jewish talk-show commentor Alan Berg in 1985 who regularly taunted racists on his show.
However, the view that Jews are responsible to white genocide is contested by other figures, such as Jared Taylor. Whitaker's White GeNOcide Project doesn't see the issue as white versus non-white but rather pro-white versus anti-white.
*******
Genocide of America: A Refugee Immigrant Invasion
By Frosty Wooldridge
January 11, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
Over New Year’s, the British Broadcasting Company reported that African-Syrian refugees sexually attacked 1,000 German women. Even CBS News reported the attacks this past Sunday night, January 10, 2015!
On Saturday night, a Muslim gunman screamed praises to Allah in Philadelphia as he shot 12 rounds into a police car at an intersection in praise of the Islamic State. Miraculously, the officer survived. Whether it’s San Bernardino or the Boston Marathon, Muslim refugees continue to bring jihad to America at an ever increasing rate of speed. The Koran prescribes the violence: “Convert or kill all non-believers.”
What does it mean? Answer: Muslim refugees carry their culture into host countries with a vengeance. No amount of welfare, pity or aid stops cultural sexual tendencies and violence of Muslims.
Over 1,000,000 (million) refugees stormed into Germany in 2015. Hundreds of thousands more of them flooded into Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Austria.
Because of her welcoming of those refugees, Time Magazine named German Chancellor Angela Merkel“Person of the Year”. Historians may well rename her “Most Foolish Woman of the Century” when the final collapse of Germany and the rest of Europe manifests.
Which brings a sane person to consider the following points:
The United Nations’ demographic experts show that third world countries add 80,000,000 (million) desperate, hungry and illiterate babies to the world annually. In reality, 57 million human beings die annually around the world from all causes. Third world mothers not only replace the 57 million deaths with 57 million new babies, but they add another 80 million more babies, net gain. Thus, 137 million new babies hit the planet every year. They need water, energy, food, housing, clothing, education, medical care and all services for living.
In reality, nothing on Earth and no entity can facilitate the viability of 137 million new babies. None of those countries enjoys educational facilities or work or food or teachers to sustain them.
Thus, over 10 million children starve to death annually. Another 8 million adults die in poverty. Those facts grow larger every year as you see millions of desperate people migrate from Africa, Asia, Indochina and South America—into first world countries, i.e., Europe, Canada, Australia and America. All those countries maintain stable populations and have since 1970.
Notice that Japan, China and India take zero immigrants of any kind. Middle Eastern countries refuse to take them.
What does that mean? Answer: European countries absorb cultures, religions and people who lack any affinity or preparation to move into first world cultures. Once they reach Europe or America, they tap into welfare systems not available in their own countries. They continue birth rates that caused their desperate situations in their own countries. Whether it’s war for water, energy or resources, third world people cannot survive in their overpopulated countries.
For example, today, Africa houses 1.1 billion people. Demographic experts project 2 billion within 34 years by 2050 and 4 billion by the end of this century. That means no one takes responsibility for their fecundity rates in those countries.
Thus, worldwide, the refugee line grows by 1 billion every 12 years and an added 3 billion by 2050.
While first world countries maintain stable populations at 2.00 children per woman, those same countries explode their populations by endless immigration.
What’s it doing to the West? Answer: genocide of Western cultures and ultimately death to economic systems. This video should be seen by every American, Canadian, European and Australian.
A short 20-minute documentary on what could be called "The Great Displacement," namely the flooding of Western countries with foreign immigrants--whereby the majority populations become the minorities in their own countries. Regardless of how one feels on the topic, this grows as the number one issue in the near future as demographics shift dramatically in The West.
The Endgame: A Documentary on 'Western Genocide' (see video above)
In the United States, the European-American population in 2015 will become a minority group as it gives way to a 51 percent Latino-Mexican-Hispanic majority by 2042—a mere 26 years from now. Canadians will become a minority in their own country sooner. Europeans already face minority status in their own countries within decades.
If America’s 1965 Immigration Reform Act continues, 1.2 million legal immigrants, their children and chain migrated relatives will continue their invasion of America into the endless future. The consequences grow as to changing the culture, language, ethnic mix and ethos of America.
Not only will such a massive migration invasion change the course of history for all Americans of every race, creed and color—but it will destroy our ability to function as a viable civilization. And, in fact, America ultimately will collapse.
What’s amazing about this fact: not a whisper by our leaders, the main stream press, and/or the American people because they do not understand their own bleak futures.
If you don’t want a Paris, France or San Bernardino event in your community, it’s time to call for a total “Immigration Shutdown Now.”
Call your senators and House rep: 1 202 224 3121. Demand a stop to all immigration and stop to any Syrian immigration.
Definition of slogan: "Immigration Shutdown Now means the American people want a total shutdown on all legal and illegal immigration. That means we want all illegal immigration stopped by arresting, prosecuting and jailing employers of illegal aliens. We deport all illegal aliens by taking their jobs away and as we catch them. We want English mandated as our national language. We demand a cessation of Muslim immigration in order to protect our culture, language and way of life. We can’t save the world but we can destroy our civilization. We demand a stable population that allows everyone to live, work and thrive into the 21st century. Especially our children." FHW
That’s why you need to take action. Send this series to everyone in your network. Educate them. Urge them to take action by joining these websites to become faxers of prewritten letters and phone callers. We must force Congress into an “Immigration Shutdown Now!
Share these videos all over America:
In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself.
“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words, “Mind boggling!”
Sustainable Population Australia
© 2016 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.
His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’
*******
Brainwashing English schools will teach kids that Africans were there first 
by Steve Goode
January 10, 2016
Members of the “Black and Asian Studies Association” have got a history course introduced to 16 year-old English school children, which teaches that Africans were the earliest inhabitants of England.
The creators of the course said the point of the course is to challenge the “white male-dominated” history of Britain.
And how do they back up this questionable claim that Africans were the first inhabitants? Well, they don’t.
All they could find was that ONE Roman legion, which was briefly stationed along Hadrian’s wall, had 500 men who were Moors from North Africa. There is no evidence that they ever settled there.
Critics are saying it is “pro-immigration propaganda.”
Historian Sir Roy Strong, said: “The only Africans who came here were a few with the Romans who came and then left! I find it disturbing that our children should be taught something that is clearly designed to feed into contemporary problems rather than tell our island’s story properly.”
Chris McGovern, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education said “The country is being sold down the river by the politically correct brigade and national identity sacrificed for minority groups to feel included. It’s pro-immigration propaganda.”
This course will be taught in English schools in September, 2016.
The ONLY reason why this is being taught in schools is because various anti-White militants want Britain to open its borders and use mass non-White immigration to get rid of the White majority.
This agenda is White genocide because it’s a deliberate attempt to get rid of us, though the anti-Whites themselves would call it something nicer like “diversity”.
This White genocide agenda is not just restricted to Britain, either. It is being promoted in just about every Western country on the planet.
Despite the British education system being pumped full of anti-White and pro-mass immigration rhetoric, a study from May 2015, shows that school children are actually quite perceptive of real world problems.
The study of 6,000 school children found that 60% agreed that “Asylum seekers and immigrants are stealing our jobs”; 49% agreed that “Migration is out of control or not being managed properly”; and 35% agreed that: “Muslims are taking over our country.”
So by all means, hope is not lost.
*******
Huge riot in German nightclub after 500 immigrants break in and grope women 
by Steve Goode
January 9, 2016
More news is coming out of Germany about the New Year’s Eve sex assault wave committed by “Arab or North African” men, despite German media trying to censor the events.
Die Welt reports that the “Elephant club“, a nightclub in the city of Bielefeld, was attacked by an organized mob of about 500 immigrant men.
Nightclub bouncers phoned the police when the mob became aggressive and started throwing fireworks, but before the police could arrive, the mob broke into the nightclub and then started to grope the groins and chests of female visitors.
One of the men who stopped the mob of immigrants from groping said “Only by using physical violence, we could help women to break free.”
When police arrived a full-blown riot had broken out.
A police spokesman said the “aggressiveness of the men involved in relation to the security services was considerable.”
Rioting had been reported in the city, but German mass media had tried to cover up the extent of the riots, and the reason why they broke out.
An anonymous member of the EU’s security organizations criticized how this is being ignored by politicians.
“Nobody will admit Brussels policy is inherently linked to what happened in Cologne – they will not welcome such a link” he said.
The people in charge of the EU have been trying to “diversify” Europe with all these Arab and African immigrants. For some reason they want to get rid of Europe’s White majority.
Everyone has their own ideas as to why they would want to do this, but the one thing we can say conclusively, is that their agenda is in breach of the UN genocide conventions – it is White genocide, and “diversity” or “multiculturalism” are the just code words they use to carry out this agenda.
*******
Obama Said, "This Is Not Who We Are!"
By Frosty Wooldridge
December 18, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
After the San Bernardino massacre committed by one American-Muslim Syed Frooq and his Muslim bride, Barack Hussein Obama expects to inject another 200,000 Syrian Muslims into American within 24 months. Our best immigration experts stand no chance to vet any of them with any validity.
Democrats and Republicans, along with Libertarians and Independents across the country supported presidential candidate Donald Trump who said, “We need to ban Muslim immigration into our country until we find out what’s going on….”
America cheered for such profound common sense. During WWII, we stopped Germans and Japanese immigration. During the Iran hostage affair during President Jimmy Carter’s administration, he deported Iranian students and stopped all Iranian immigration.
But last week, after the massacre, our Muslim President Barack Obama admonished Congress to continue importing an endless stream of Muslims with no way to vet them, whatsoever. He defended his actions. When questioned about the majority of Americans that rebelled, he said, “This is not who we are.”
The American people shouted back, “You are not who we are…we are sick of Fort Hood killings. We sicken at the Boston Marathon bombers. We cry at the Chattanooga Muslim killings. We hate being victims of the San Bernardino massacre. We don’t want any more.”
If you look at Facebook, the majority of Americans stand against further importation of Muslims for the sake of their families and friends. Question: why would an American leader inject our country with more terrorists among the refugees?
Answer: he’s not an American president. He’s a Muslim president.
American Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson: "This all points to the insanity of today’s world, where Muslim savages follow a sixth-century madman who grew up without his father, and waged bloody jihad against Jews, Christians and other “infidels.” And yet, almost all of our leaders – instead of standing against the atrocities committed by members of the “religion of peace” – are actually supporting their reign of terror by doing nothing to stop it. Worse, they’re actively working against the few who – like Donald Trump – are standing up for the American people."
Notice that Barack Obama’s chief advisor Valerie Jarrett said in 1977 at Stanford University, “I am an Iranian by birth and of my Islamic faith. I am also an American Citizen and I seek to help change America to be a more Islamic country. My faith guides me and I feel like it is going well in the transition of using freedom of religion in America against itself."
Make no bones about it, Obama and Jarrett vow to change America into Islamic Sharia Law. The more voters they import from all Muslim countries, the faster they can realize Sharia Law in our country. Notice no less than 13 Muslims now reside as aides to Obama at the White House. These folks move fast to overrun countries they intend to dominate.
Thirty years ago, leaders heralded Lebanon as the jewel of the Mediterranean. It’s Christian heritage of hard work, devotion to country and singular culture brought it to the top. Today, overrun by Muslims, Lebanon stands as the prime example of multiculturalism’s folly.
Again, read this quote in Islam’s main thrust in any country it invades:
Dayanand Saraswati, Indian sage, said in 1883, "Having thus given a cursory view of the Koran, I lay it before the sensible person with the purpose that they should know what kind of a book the Koran is. I have no hesitation to say that it cannot be the work of either God or of a learned man, nor can it be a book of knowledge. Here its very vital defect has been exposed with the object that people may not waste their life falling into its imposition. The Koran is the result of ignorance, the source of animalization of human beings, a fruitful cause of destroying peace, an incentive to war, and propagator of hostility among men and a promoter of suffering in society. As to defect of repetition, the Koran is its store."
Do we bow to Mecca or do we stand for our Constitution and way of life: free thought, free speech, free choice, women’s rights, free travel, free choice of religion, free choice of food, free to pursue our dreams---or do we accede to Sharia Law where all personal choices face the governance of a 6th century barbarian who thrusts his sword into Western countries in the 21st century?
At some point, we stop further Muslim immigration, or we become victims of “caliphates” known as “new countries” within our country and suffer the onslaught of Sharia Law.
If you don’t want a Paris, France or San Bernardino event in your community, it’s time to call for a total “Immigration Shutdown Now.”
Call your senators and House rep: 1-202-224-3121. Demand a stop to all immigration and stop to any Syrian immigration.
Definition of slogan: "Immigration Shutdown Now means the American people want a total shutdown on all legal and illegal immigration. That means we want all illegal immigration stopped by arresting, prosecuting and jailing employers of illegal aliens. We deport all illegal aliens by taking their jobs away and as we catch them. We want English mandated as our national language. We demand a cessation of Muslim immigration in order to protect our culture, language and way of life. We can’t save the world but we can destroy our civilization. We demand a stable population that allows everyone to live, work and thrive into the 21st century. Especially our children." FHW
That’s why you need to take action. Send this series to everyone in your network. Educate them. Urge them to take action by joining these websites to become faxers of prewritten letters and phone callers. We must force Congress into an “Immigration Shutdown Now!
Australia: www.population.org.au Sustainable Population Australia
© 2015 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.
His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’
*******
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide  
Published on Feb 8, 2014
Africa for the africans,
Asia for the asians,
white countries for everybody, it's genocide!
*******
Turning America Into An International Doormat
By Frosty Wooldridge
October 27, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
The United States has become a nation of weak, pampered, easily frightened, helpless milquetoasts who have never caught a fish, fired a gun, chopped a log, hitchhiked across the country, or been in a schoolyard fight. If their cat dies, they call a grief therapist. Everything frightens Americans.” Fred Ree
American citizens: once independent, self-reliant, patriotic and boldly individualistic.
Today, our country resembles an upside-down pyramid civilization where millions of citizens depend on handouts such as food, energy, housing and medical care. Instead of rigorous educational standards turning out highly disciplined, intellectually proficient adults—we degrade our high schools and colleges to affirmative action classes and grading. Instead of seeking the most qualified, our colleges search for the most unqualified—and then pretend they graduate with a piece of paper that equates to a box of Fruitloops.
America no longer stands for its citizens to serve our country for two years in the military or civilian life such as America Corps. Thus, a sense of personal accountability and responsibility vanished over 40 years ago. Even the current president of the USA wouldn’t know a platoon from a squad or a brigade.
Today, our schools stagger under the onslaught of 190 countries exporting their no-skills citizens into our workforce, schools, hospitals and welfare centers—to the tune of over 1.2 million annually. Those immigrants represent the third world’s most desperate. The Denver Post reported that Denver Public Schools struggle with 172 different languages.
Their kids can’t learn and our kids don’t stand a chance against linguistic confusion. Thus, 50-70 percent dropout/flunkout rates remain the norm in immigrant-dominated cities across the country.
Note: what is the single word that defines a third world country? Answer: illiteracy.
Whereas Africa and the Middle East cannot sustain their exploding populations—they ship them to Western countries by the millions. No matter how much human misery, those country’s leaders provoke endless birth rates.
Thus, America grows as the “International Doormat” of globe.
All the while, Americans re-elect senators and congressmen/women who lack the courage, guts and gumption to stop the legal and illegal immigration invasion. Americans re-elected a president brought up in Africa and Indonesia for the first 12 years of his life. He’s a foreigner with no allegiance to America. His actions prove it: he refuses to enforce America’s laws as to open borders, sanctuary cities and internal enforcement as to labor, housing and transportation. He refuses to create jobs for African-Americans.
At the same time, the American people average 4.5 hours of TV nightly. They salivate for Sunday, Monday and Thursday night football, but do nothing to take any action to stop the immigration invasion.
Every 30 days, another 100,000 legal immigrants land on America front door or its backdoor known as the Mexican border. No matter how many Muslim jihadists come ashore, the American people snooze, doze and sleep through the growing menace of immigration. Ironically, top government people know of 22 to 35 Muslim training camps spread from Pennsylvania to Oregon—but won’t do anything because those Islamic camps remain private property.
Only after they attack us will any government official take action. Except, they attacked us on 9/11. But if you look at our borders, they remain open to endless jihadists and other Muslim terrorists 24/7.
Which begs the question: how totally stupid, apathetic and irresponsible can the U.S. Congress show itself? How totally lazy, fat and out of touch can the U.S. public prove itself?
Why doesn’t anyone understand the ramifications of adding the projected 100,000,000 (million) more legal immigrants within 30 years? Why does the “Main Stream Media” suppress any mention of what’s coming? How can any intelligent TV host such as Shepard Smith, Bill O’Reilly, Scott Pelley, David Muir, Lester Holt, Megyn Kelly, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer and Bill Moyers squash-suppress-crush any discussion and interviews of top experts on what we face?
When that 100 millionth third world person lands on America in 30 years—turning our country into an overpopulated, polyglot, culturally conflicted and non-functioning civilization—our kids will ask the question: “How stupid were our parents back in 2015? Why did our leaders let our country become an international doormat?” Answer: common sense died, critical thinking vanished and leaders failed to take action.
That’s why we need you to take action today for a total “Immigration Shutdown Now.” We need to rescind the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. We need to stop all immigration into America.
Definition of slogan: "Immigration Shutdown Now means the American people want a total shutdown on all legal and illegal immigration. That means we want all illegal immigration stopped by arresting, prosecuting and jailing employers of illegal aliens. We deport all illegal aliens by taking their jobs away and as we catch them. We want English mandated as our national language. We demand a cessation of Muslim immigration in order to protect our culture, language and way of life. We can’t save the world but we can destroy our civilization. We demand a stable population that allows everyone to live, work and thrive into the 21st century. Especially our children." FHW
That’s why you need to take action. Send this series to everyone in your network. Educate them. Urge them to take action by joining these websites to become faxers of prewritten letters and phone callers. We must force Congress into an “Immigration Shutdown Now!
Australia: www.population.org.au Sustainable Population Australia
© 2015 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.
His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’
*******
Also See:
World Poverty Won't Disappear Soon!
15 September 2015
and
What is the Problem with Immigration?
14 October 2011
and
Illegal Immigrants, Anchor Babies - Is There No End?
19 July 2011
and
Arizona's New Immigration Law
07 May 2010
*******

Days Before the Two Candidates Are Known!

$
0
0
*******
*******
MichelleI Malkin, Donald Trump and Eminent Domain
By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
February 11, 2016
© 2015 NewsWithViews.com
Portland Oregon -- While the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primaries were widely covered by the national news media, a number of conservative groups under the umbrella movement -- the Oregon Liberty Alliance-- held a moving political rally in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday, February 6.
The group's 2016 Freedom Rally boasted a guest list of some of the nation's top conservative voices including blogger extraordinaire and immigration activist Michelle Malkin, author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza, and Fox News contributor Todd Starnes. The non-profit groups represented were the Oregon Women's League, Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, Oregon Right to Life, Taxpayer Defense Project, Oregon Family Council and others. [Link]
More than 1,700 people attended Saturday’s 2016 Freedom Rally for conservative values at the Oregon Convention Center in Portland. The rally, put on by the Oregon Liberty Alliance, was to support fiscal responsibility, life, public safety, family values, and religious liberty.
This was the third year for the rally, and attendance has continued to grow. There were more than 750 people at thefirst rally in 2014, over 1,500 at last year’s rally and more than 1,700 at this year’s rally.
Rally attendees heard energizing and inspiring talks from Starnes, Malkin, Oregon Republican Congressman Greg Walden and D’Souza. Attendees could also visit booths at the rally and learn more about numerous conservative causes, groups and candidates.
Also attending the political rally were members of the management at the top news and commentary web site NewsWithViews.com. Unfortunately, some of the speakers were not enthralled with the leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
As Michelle Malkin was speaking and paused for a few seconds, the editor of NewsWithViews.com used the opportunity to shout out 'God Bless Donald Trump.'
"Upon hearing that, she started attacking Mr. Trump: Malkin said, 'He believes in Eminent Domain' and will take people's property.' She was downright nasty and negative towards Mr. Trump," said the editor-in-chief of NewsWithViews.com.
Senior Editor Paul Walter said, "It was disheartening for me to hear that because I know it's a total fabricated lie. I love Trump, who I believe is a decent man with a heart of gold. I know without a shadow of a doubt that he is the only one who can save what's left of my beloved America." Mr. Walter, who attended the rally with his film actress wife Yutte Stensgaard, noted that out of all the speakers participating in the rally, Ms. Malkin was the only one trashing Mr. Trump. She did however, give Mr. Trump credit on the open border issue. said Walter.
"I find that surprising because out of all the candidates, Trump is the only candidate taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and our national sovereignty. Michelle Malkin gained national attention as a result of her tough immigration stance and her call for tighter border security and immigration enforcement," said political strategist.
The Republican Party's neo-cons are using Eminent Domain strategy against Trump because it works -- it scares conservatives and libertarians. Mr. Walter and other political observers believe they are stooping to the use of a strategy employed by Adolph Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels: If you repeat a lie often enough people will eventually come to believe it.
"The Democratic Party uses that tactic frequently. For example, ask people who started the Ku Klux Klan, a large number of them will say the Republicans. The truth is, the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats. But the Democrats lied about that fact for decades until now college kids believe the KKK is a part of the GOP," said former attorney and political consultant Joshua Tannenbaum. (read Kelleigh Nelson's article "Voter Fraud? Thank Howard Baker")
"The neo-cons are going on the offensive with this lie in the hope of putting Mr. Trump on the defensive," added Paul Walter.
Mr. Walter also advises that NewsWithViews.com will soon release an article researched by Kelleigh Nelson that accuses Jeb Bush, when he served as Florida's governor of being the real Eminent Domain villain. The article will reveal that on his watch the State of Florida wanted to confiscate Jesse Hardy's 160 acres using the Eminent Domain strategy. Stalin said: "Accuse others of what you do"
Yet, the neo-con hypocrites are taking the advice of Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's mentor, Saul Alinsky: "Accuse others of what you do," claims a former New York police detective and prosecuting attorney Rafael Menendez. "The neo-cons are accusing Trump of what they do [regarding Eminent Domain]. They know that people are gullible and the only way to stop Trump is with outright lies, dirty tricks and voter fraud."
After the rally, NWV's editor-in-chief spoke briefly with Mr. D'Souza. "He told us that he has a new documentary film being released this summer -- the week before the Democratic Convention -- in 1,500 theaters across the nation in order to expose the lies, dishonesty and criminal acts of Bill and Hillary Clinton," he said.
"This will defiantly help the Republican nominee. Mr. D'Souza was extremely polite and friendly. He encouraged us to see his new documentary movie the first weekend of the release because it will help launch it in more theaters across the nation," said Mr. Walter.
Unfortunately only Dr. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio were GOP candidates with booths staffed by campaign workers passing out campaign flyers. There were upwards of 1,700 people in attendance. But no one was officially representing Mr. Trump.
We at NWV's are doing all we can to expose corruption and help Mr. Trump. We need to increase our hits to reach more people. If you readers have any ideas, please let us know. NWV's own Paul Walter believes that Trump deserves his support based on his honesty, his refusal to be "bought" and his clearly stated agenda: to "Make America Great Again."
© 2016 NWV - All Rights Reserved
*******
Forget 'We'll Remember In November' - It's The Primaries
By: Devvy Kidd
January 31, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
"Nature gave man two ends - one to sit on and one to think with. Ever since then, man's success or failure has been dependent on the one he used most."—George R. Kirkpatrick (1867-1937) Lecturer
'We'll remember in November' has been the rallying cry every two years by millions of Americans. Of course, too many don't understand by November it's too late.
Rewarding Crooks and Incompetents, May 11, 2009
"The Republican Party wants to 'reinvent' itself. What hogwash and it's all for public consumption to fool voters into reelecting incumbents or ousting a few Democrats.
"Americans have been committing national suicide for decades. They vote the same incumbents back into office over one issue: More money for education! Save social security! Save Medicare! which is now $30 TRILLION in the hole. Protect abortion! Save sodomy! Save the whales! The list goes on and on. I've seen the insanity repeat itself over and over and over. People will "forgive" their House member or Senator because "the other side" is worse. They still can't see the truth because of blind loyalty to their party."
Americans Love the IRS & The Income Tax, April 7, 2012
"But, none of this seems to matter to the nearly 100 million Americans who continue to reelect the same liars for hire to the U.S. Congress. For the past few months enthusiastic supporters of incumbents have been out there working to get their Congress critter reelected. The same miscreants who steal from us, lie to us and cheat us out of our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The same incumbents who have and continue to lie to those enthusiastic supporters about the nature of the "income" tax. Roughly 100 million Americans working for their own destruction while thinking it's a good idea. Classic Sun Tzu's Art of War."
Are Americans Really This Stupid? June 27, 2012:
"Americans got angry. They said we will hold you responsible in November 2010! Sure, they did. With an approval rating of 11% for the gangsters in the Outlaw Congress, a whopping 86% of incumbents were sent back to Washington, DC., after the 2010 elections to continue stealing us blind and passing more and more unconstitutional laws while allowing alphabet soup agencies like the FDA, EPA and USDA to continue running amok. I suppose one could say it was an improvement over the usual 96% reelection stats for incumbents....
"Don't look to any change come this November as far as the U.S. Congress. The same outlaws will get reelected after winning their primaries and it will be back to business as usual come January. Remember that Rassmussen poll I cited above? 78% of the American people believe the outlaws in the U.S. Congress are governing without their consent, yet they have gone to the polls and voted to reelect the same parasites in dozens of primaries. You hire someone to do a job, they do just the opposite and you turn right around and give them your vote - again."
Four Important Bills Languishing in Congress, March 10, 2014
"Those bills are important issues that should have been solved a long time ago. Where has your congress critter been? Why hasn't he/she pushed to get them passed? Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress?
Fox News poll: 67 percent would vote out all current lawmakers - March 6, 2014
"By a 67-26 percent margin, voters would kick everybody on Capitol Hill to the curb and replace them with new people. That includes two-thirds of Democrats, Republicans and independents. The result is perhaps not so surprising, given how voters feel about lawmakers these days: just 12 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, while 78 percent disapprove."
But, voters said almost the same thing in 2010 and still reelected 92% of congressional incumbents and expected change: Fox News Poll: 68% Say Vote Out All Incumbents -March 19, 2010
"If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do? A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall. Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office."
"Not here in Texas. Our primary was March 4th and what did ignorant voters do? Why, they voted against qualified challengers for Congress. They voted to reelect the same incumbents who have destroyed this country. That's right. Conservatives ignorant on the issues allowed themselves to be herded in the right direction by organizations like The Conservative Republicans of Texas who sent out a sample ballot to registered Republicans telling them to reelect every incumbent. So-called leadership leading the flock straight to the slaughterhouse."
Ft. Hood: Official Response More Meaningless Rhetoric, April 6, 2014
"Not if people reelect the same incumbents back to Congress starting with those upcoming primaries. If incumbents in the Outlaw Congress haven't fixed the problem for active duty soldiers with mental health issues and the VA in all the years they've been in Congress, what makes you think they will do it if people vote to reelect them in the primaries? Why do Americans keep expecting things to change by voting for the same failures in the Outlaw Congress who didn't get the job done?"
Rape & Betrayal By The GOP: Let Me Count The Ways, December 16, 2014 one month after Americans gave Republicans the majority again. That column has very important information in it, i.e, "How much will this cost you, me our children and grand children inDEBT? $720.9 MILLION in 2015. Here is the web site to see how those "conservatives" everyone helped win their primaries on the way back to Washington, DC to screw us are going to steal from us in 2015. The list of countries is endless while our financial future is dead. There is ZERO constitutional authority for the bandits in the Outlaw Congress to steal from we the people for any of it." My column:
GOP Incumbents Will Betray America End of Year by yours truly, February 10, 2014
"Johnny boy and other pimps with pull power in the House and Senate have every intention of selling us out. As pointed out in this piece, 'White House giving Boehner room on immigration', it likely will come during the 'lame duck' session, Nov - Dec. 2014...
"What all incumbents in the U.S. House and 1/3 rd of the unlawfully seated U.S. Senate want is you to vote for them in the upcoming primaries so they can go on to win in November and go right back to destroying this country. John Boehner, if not defeated in the May 6, 2014 primary will return to the Outlaw Congress and sell us out, right along with most incumbent Republicans for back room deals.
"Mark my words that's EXACTLY what will happen. Republicans will use the same cowardly argument about "family values" to legalize 25-30 MILLION liars, cheats and thieves (some family values) because that's what illegal aliens are..."I've got news for Republicans who want to keep the destroyers in office - incumbents lie."
"I told you so: Boehner Ally Admits Omnibus Bill Was Crafted in Literal Cigar Smoke-Filled Back Room. "The bill funds Obama’s amnesty, funds Obamacare, provides funds for controversial pro-abortion measures, and is packed to the hilt with pork--like money to save rhinoceroses from poaching; a reauthorization of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s casino crony kickback, the Travel Promotion Act; and more.
"And, what did those incumbents who won their primaries and got reelected to the U.S. House do on December 11, 2014? The U.S. House of Whores voted to pass a $1.1 TRILLION dollar bill which will finance the government through September 2015 - including amnesty, all the programs underway to keep illegals here and Obamacare."
Voters, Again, Choose Their Own Destruction (Primaries), May 11, 2014
"Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress? Apparently, they do. But, since tens of millions of voters are completely ignorant about the issues, how could they know their congress critter is a failure who keeps promoting Band Aids instead of constitutional solutions? The herding technique is very effective every election cycle: keep blaming the other party, not your incumbent...
"Here in Texas, millions of voters who've "had enough" stayed home and didn't vote on March 4th. A paltry 13.3% of all registered voters in this state bothered to get to the ballot box. 'Don't Mess With Texas' is a meaningless motto. Our state legislature is also just as corrupt as others. They continue to ignore the only real solutions as the clock ticks. Tragically for Texans, rotten GOP state incumbents also won their primaries."
One Thing Donald Trump Can't Do For The Economy, December 21, 2015
"If your member of Congress has done nothing to kill the cancer and continuing down the same road, what makes you think re-electing the same incumbent next year will get the job done? Abolishing the unconstitutional "Fed", getting us out of all "free" trade treaties, abolishing Obamacare, get us out of the UN once and for all, abolishing unconstitutional cabinets - the most critical issues have been completely ignored by your incumbent and mine, who is retiring, thank God. Tragically, we the people are going to pay dearly in the near future."
If Americans once again vote for their congressional incumbents in the upcoming primaries NOTHING will change.
• Uninformed, disinterested, brainwashed & special interest voters (2006)
• Re-electing the Band Aid Brigade (May 2010)
• Electing new Band Aid Pushers (May 2012)
Every two years qualified constitutional candidates run for the state houses and Congress and every two years incumbents wipe them out. Go look at this chart which shows the percentage of incumbents who continue to get reelected election after election. On the House of Representative side the average is always above 90%. On the Senate side, consistently in the 80% and above.
Besides vote fraud which kept me out of Congress, candidates challenging an incumbent are squashed like a bug by the GOP machine AND because those challengers don't get the ground support they need to win a primary.
At this point in time, tens of millions of Americans are angry. VERY angry. If they go to the polls in the next few months and vote for an incumbent instead of a qualified challenger NOTHING will change. The incumbents - either party - then goes on to win in November because they always vote straight party line. Despite polling which shows incumbents (every two years) with an approval rating of 11% - 15%, still the people vote back those incumbents. Why? Because (1) the GOP and Democratic/Communist Party USA throw their weight to crush challengers, (2) because too damn many Americans still believe it's not their incumbent, it's the other party's, and (3) They believe the BS about an incumbent having so much experience and being on important committees. They sure do and are destroying us and this country.
Well, how's that working out for YOU?
The crook who has never represented me in my congressional district, Randy Neugebauer, is finally retiring. Here Are Four Texas U.S. House Races to Keep an Eye on
"Nine Republicans filed to run for retiring U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer’s strongly Republican seat: former Texas Tech Vice Chancellor Jodey Arrington, farmer Jason Corley, bank president Greg Garrett, veterinarian John C. Key, retired ophthalmologist Donald R. May, farmer Don Parrish, Lubbock Mayor Glen Robertson, retired U.S. Air Force officer Michael Bob Starr and health care administrator DeRenda Warren.
Donald May, who I voted for, ran two years ago but lost the primary because he's from Lubbock two hours from where I live. There was barely a peep about his run. He simply did not have the critical grass roots organization to beat Neugebauer. The others are new names to me so I looked at each of their web sites. For your district just type in the person's name + for Congress into a search engine to get to their web site.
Arrington has the standard boiler plate stuff, but as far as any constitutional solution to get rid of unconstitutional cabinets and agencies like the Federal Department of Dumbing Down Education, he is sorely lacking. Corley only has a Facebook page. I've never logged on to any Facebook page nor will I. Mark Zuckerberg who hates American workers is worth nearly a half trillions bux. He owns Facebook and he will never get a penny of my money. While his heart is in the right place, Corley needs a web site that gives his position on the issues, clearly and succinctly.
Garrett has no clue about the income tax fraud. Nor does he address any of the critical issues I dissect in the columns above, Band Aid Brigade and Electing New Band Aid Pushers. John Key also recognizes many of the cancers killing this country, but again, nothing about the disabilities of our monetary system and actually going for the jugular in reducing the size of the federal monster. Mr. Parrish has the worst web site that virtually tells you nothing about constitutional solutions. M. Warren is highly educated but she's the typical fluff out there. No constitutional solutions; doesn't even list critical issues besides Obamacare.
Michael Bob Starr recently retired as a full colonel in the Air Force; highly decorated veteran. Same old, same old one hears from 'conservatives' running for Congress. Unfortunately, he just doesn't get it regarding the national debt, no mention of the FED and so on. Glen Robertson 'gets it' on many of the issues just like Donald May. However, I will vote for Dr. May again because he is keen on the Tenth Amendment as well as having a good understanding of constitutional government.
I bring this up for a reason. Find out who is challenging your congressional incumbent (same thing for your state rep and senator) in the upcoming primaries. Then you have to do like I did - which is time consuming - look up their 'for Congress' web site and go through them one by one. Get out there and help beat rotten congressional incumbents.
ALIPAC Endorses Maria Espinoza for Congress Against Rep. Culberson - She gets my personal endorsement. Culberson has money behind him, but he needs to be booted out of Congress. If you live in his district, get out there and vote for Maria in the primary, March 1st. Spread the word in that district.
Here is a list of 150 incumbents Republicans, House and Senate, who betrayed YOU, your children and grand children on amnesty - they all need to get thrown out of Congress. The only way to get that done is to get out on primary day in your state and vote. There's still time to sign up and volunteer for a good challenger because they don't have the kind of money (well, most don't) incumbents do and if they don't have volunteers to walk the district getting the candidate's message to voters, there's no chance.
I guarantee you if the same congressional incumbents win their primaries odds are heavily in favor for that incumbent in November and NOTHING will change. Republican or Democrat, NOTHING will change except for the worse. I'll say it again as I have said so many times: Do people expect change and problems solved by reelecting the same incumbents who never got the job done in all the years they've been in Congress?
Right now the major focus is on Iowa and the presidential candidates, but primaries are also for congressional seats, your state capitol and any other offices like city council, sheriff or judges. If you don't know who is running for a particular office, use a search engine. Example: Texas primary candidates secretary of state. That took me to this page which gives you all candidates on your primary ballot.
In 2014 our primary here in Texas was just sickening. Out of 13.6 million registered voters only 1.9 million got out and voted for their future. 11.7 million voters here in Texas stayed home. They couldn't even make the effort to kick out every incumbent, Republican or Democrat, who have been destroying this country and their future, never mind their children and grand children. It's not about one issue as I wrote about in my columns on Band Aid pushers. It's about violating their oath of office every day they're in office.
It isn't the other party's incumbent. It's YOURS and MINE from both parties. 'Conservative' means nothing as I wrote about in my column last week. We need constitutionalists, not more phony conservatives who have been conserving nothing but our destruction.
Please, click on "Mass E-mailing" below and send this article it to all your friends.
A few items you might find helpful:
1 - Ted Cruz's Closest Counselors Are Neocons - Warning
2 - Ted Cruz's Federal Education "Choice" Kills The American Dream
 Remember: Congress has ZERO authority to legislate education
3 - How Huckabee Deceived Iowa 8 Years Ago
4 - America 2016: We're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore
5 - Film will make viewers jury in 'Hillary trial'
 Buried among scandals is 'biggest-ever case of campaign-finance fraud'
6 - Hillary Project on track 'to take her out' - The goal? Prosecution, not presidency
7 - Reminder: Why Trump Battles The Fox News Machine
 How can he run as a Democrat when he's not registered with that party?
8 - Bernie Sanders: ‘We will raise taxes. Yes, we will’
[Just a short note about 9/11 and Smart Electric Meeters. The cost of America's undeclared "war" (invasion) in Afghanistan has now reached $1 trillion borrowed dollars - massive debt heaped on us all based on what happened on 9/11. Regular readers of my column know I continue to press for the truth about the events of 9/11. Military grade nanothermite is not a conspiracy theory. It was found and tested from the rubble at the twin towers. A new, powerful film has been released: The Anatomy of a Great Deception. For full disclosure I receive no compensation, but I want you to get a copy (or a few) and share it with others or give a copy as a present. I've purchased half a dozen copies and given them to individuals I believe seek the truth. It's very powerful simply because it's one 'ordinary' man's story who ask a simple question that led him to a not so simple journey. There is factual information in this film that many have never heard about but everyone should. Just a suggestion, order more than one and give one to a friend. Also, must see video on the dangers of Smart Meeters on your home, titled: Take Back Your Power.]
© 2016 - NewsWithViews.com and Devvy - All Rights Reserved
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
E-mail is: devvyk@npn.net
*******
The Party of the People
By Pastor Roger Anghis
January 31, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

This election cycle has brought a lot of things out into the open that most people knew nothing about concerning the state of our political system. This is rampant in both political parties but it is only beginning to show blatantly in the Republican Party this cycle. I watched a video of a behind doors meeting of the political elites of the Republican Party and they were complaining about some ‘candidates’ that are coming against people of certain religions and some people of certain ethnic backgrounds.[1]

This was a direct attack on Donald Trump’s opposition to the unconstitutionally unbridled immigration from Mexico and his opposition to the unfettered immigration of muslims from terrorist nations specifically Syria. In this video the speaker stated that the Republican Party was their Party and then he made the statement that it was the Party of the people. He is 100% wrong about that. He, along with the rest of the elites in both parties, have forgotten that we have a representative government and that the people elect the people that THEY want to represent them. This Republican Party demands that we elect the people the PARTY wants. They are ignoring ‘the people’ they are supposed to be representing.
In the debate that was scheduled for last Thursday night on Fox News some interesting information came out a couple days before the debate that Fox News, at the approval of the RNC, were going to have a pro-muslim and pro-hispanic round of questions for Trump via YouTube. I have been involved in politics for quite some time and I have never seen a political Party attack its front runner from every side as they have Donald Trump. One really has to ask the question ‘Why are they so afraid of Trump?’ In virtually every poll Trump is the people’s favorite by double digits![2]
Yet the Republican elite are behind closed doors doing everything they can to bring him down. There has to be a reason for this and I believe that it is because he can’t be bought. He can’t be manipulated. He is exposing a lot of dirty laundry within the entire political system. His attention to the ‘natural born’ aspect of the Constitution concerning Ted Cruz is nothing more than upholding the demands of the Constitution concerning the position of President. This aspect was ignored in the last two elections and we have an ineligible man in the White House because of that. In short Trump is 100% right that Cruz is not eligible. The term ‘natural born’ was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be a child born to two parents that were citizens of a country. This is discussed in detail in an article written by my friend JB Williams.[3]
This definition, which we have followed up until 2008, makes not only Obama ineligible but Cruz and Rubio. My question is why does the Republican Party literally demand that this be ignored.Because this is part of the Constitutional requirements to be eligible to hold the office of the President any changes to that requirement would require an amendment to change it. There is no amendment to that article of the Constitution and as such that requirement still stands. Cruz’s father did not become a US citizen until 2005. When Ted Cruz was running for the Senate in 2012, he stated to supporters at a Texas 912 campaign event that he was “NOT ELIGIBLE for the White House because his father was never a US citizen until 2005, in addition to being born in Canada.”[4]
With the Republican elite attacking Trump on illegal immigration from Mexico it is nothing but a slap in the face to the citizens of America. These illegals are keeping the wages artificially low because they are willing to work for much less than the American worker. They are like leaches on our welfare system. Our country is going through an immense immigration crisis that will not be able to endure for much longer.
It turns out a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that nearly all immigrant families with four or more children in the house are on some type of government welfare program.
Census reports that with every child, immigrants access taxpayer-funded welfare programs more and more. Some 70 percent of those with one child are on welfare, 71.3 percent for those with two children, and 87.8 percent for immigrant families with three kids in the house.[5] We, as a nation, can no longer continue on this path and Trump has the ability to make some significant changes in how this is done.
Our spending under Obama has escalated beyond belief. He has spent more than the previous 43 presidents combined and he had promised to cut the debt in half his first term! In an article from 2011: When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 days—or about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until Obama’s term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillion—an increase of more than $6.2 trillion for Obama’s four years.
That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.[6] How can we continue on this road to bankruptcy? Obama has about 6% of his cabinet that has any business savvy. Ronald Reagan had 68% of his cabinet that were successful businessmen. Trump has openly ridicules this administration on the ‘deals’ that it has made with other nations that seem to benefit only the other nations at the cost to the American taxpayer! I believe that Trump will have many in his cabinet that will know what needs to be done to get our economy going again. One of the things we have to do is curb the illegal immigration and neither Party is willing to address this and the American people are getting tired of our government ignoring the major concerns of not just the people but the health of the nation itself.
The national security is a top concern for most citizens and allowing immigration from terrorist nations to continue without a viable vetting process is almost suicide. But the Republican elite continue to bash Trump for saying something needs to be done. Jimmy Carter banned immigration from Iran during the hostage situation and even deported over 15,000 Iranian students, nobody said a word. FDR put Japanese US citizens in internment camps, nobody said anything. Trump suggests that we stop immigration from terrorist nations until we can get a hold of a better more reliable vetting process and the world goes nuts including the Republican elite! 
Is there more to this than we can see on the surface? I have no doubt that there is. Will it be exposed in this election? I think a lot of it will and it will be exposed by Trump and that is what both Party elites are afraid of. Trump may not be a perfect candidate but then none are. Trump is willing to take a stand. His refusal to attend the debate I think is a good one. It is just a set up to attack him and ignore the issues. He want to talk issues. But he is shedding a light on many of the things that are wrong with our current system. I think that light needs to be brighter. We may not like what we see but at least it will give us what we need to make the changes that need to be made. God uses the foolish thing of the world to confound the wise. We are seeing this manifest before our eyes.
© 2016 Roger Anghis - All Rights Reserved
Footnotes:
1. Leaked Video: RNC Meets Behind Closed Doors To Destroy Trump From Within.
2. Polls: 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
3. True Facts About the Endless Natural Born Debate
4. True Facts About the Endless Natural Born Debate
5. Over 90% of Immigrant Families With 4 Kids Are on Welfare.
6. Obama Has Now Increased Debt More than All Presidents from George Washington Through George H.W. Bush Combined.
Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFreeSpeech.org and BuildingtheTruth.org, organizations designed to draw attention to the need of not just free speech for churches but disseminating correct information through responsible journalism.
Pastor Roger also has a weekly radio program on www.crusaderadio.com, The American Intelligence Briefing Hour, at 5:00 p.m. MST every Tuesday. Pastor Roger also has published for 12 years the American Intelligence Briefing an internet newsletter for keeping up on the news most agencies don't report.
Web site: BuildingTheTruth.org
*******
How To Identify True Principled Candidates
By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 31, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
“Ted Cruz idolizes Ronald Reagan…” “To his credit, Barack Obama has done the same thing. There are some in the political world that vilify Barack Obama. Personally, I’ve never been one of them. I think he is deeply committed to his principles and demonstrated real courage in fighting for them.” —Senator Ted Cruz, The Guardian, December 2013
Ted Cruz idolizes Ronald Reagan and the real courage of Barack Obama, —Raw Story
I do not believe Megyn Kelly was the reason Donald J. Trump did not show up for the Fox News debate last Thursday. Though Kelly appears to view herself as an elephant in the Donald’s campaign, I think she is more of a flea on the elephant’s butt.
Two days before the debate, Breitbart filed a good article which proved to be totally true. Fox had two “sleepers” recruited to make Trump look radical in his lawful views about immigration – and that was the intent. It appears Fox has become Marco Rubio’s champion. Those who are impressed by Rubio need to consider that his first major speech after announcing his candidacy was to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a New World Order group.
In a later article out Saturday, Breitbart discovered that Fox News was trying to push Trump into a corner during the debate... a corner where he would either have to be badly embarrassed or would have to violate debate rules to defend himself. The debate organizers believed he would violate debate rules and put a plan in place to escort him from the stage. Trump's instincts are good and he made precisely the right decision to stay away from the Fox debate. [Fox News Moderators Planned to Escort Donald Trump Off Debate Stage If He ‘Broke Rules’]
The “sleepers” submitted questions via Google and they were selected as among the best questions. Each would ask their question, on camera, during the debate. If you believe these questions were the best of the hundreds of thousands submitted, I sympathize with your lack of knowledge regarding the numerous survival issues facing our nation, from economics and jobs to terrorism. These women and their questions were selected to cost Donald Trump votes in the Iowa caucus scheduled to take place about 90 hours after the debate. His responses would have been easily explainable – and justifiable – but it would take longer than 90 hours to reach caucus voters.
If you watched the debate Thursday night, you saw the two women selected by Fox News and Google. One was an illegal alien Mexican who had overcome poverty and become a successful entrepreneur in Los Angeles... obviously a slam against Trump’s stated desire to lawfully return illegal aliens back to Mexico. Her question focused on how the American economy would lose if illegals like her were all sent home to Mexico. Trump has said if they want to return lawfully, they can get in line and do so. He respects the Rule of Law. Since every dollar illegals contribute to the economy is countered with a $3 cost for social services, it would not be a difficult question to answer.
The second person selected to ask a question was a Muslim woman. She was born in America. She questioned plans to deport all Muslim refugees who cannot be properly vetted. How could the government remove her friends who had done no wrong, she asked, wailing? Again, it was an obvious slam at Donald Trump’s statements that until Muslims can be safely vetted, they should not enter America and those who had entered unlawfully should be sent home.
My answer to her would have been: “Ms. Noor, you say you are a moderate Muslim and that you were born in America. The problem is this: You are evidence of the statement that not all Muslims are terrorists. Unfortunately, another equally true statement is that all terrorist acts around the world are being committed by Muslims – not just in America but in Paris where what you tell me are peaceful Muslims killed 130 innocent victims, Sweden where they are exporting 80,000 violent Muslims, Finland which is exporting 40,000 Muslim refugees, Germany where at the Cologne rail station Muslim men who appear to have no respect for women raped several German women. Since no one from your peaceful moderate Muslim community is willing to oppose the violence you say does not represent your faith, people around the world are doing what is necessary to ensure their safety. I’m sorry if that emotionally distresses you, but whether you awaken each day a happy woman because you are surrounded by friends and family is of less importance to me than having innocent Americans killed by Islamic terrorists because America's ‘moderate Muslim community' cannot or will not reject terrorism.”
Jeb Bush sympathized with her (as one would expect Jeb to do) and there was little discussion of the matter by other candidates. I would also say that Jeb’s solutions do not comply with America’s immigration laws... a lack of respect for the Rule of Law. He forgets that the primary responsibility of the President of the United States is to protect the citizens of this country. To read the immigration law Donald Trump supports and which applies to any group that rejects the Rule of Law that flows from our Constitution, go to this link and scroll down to Chapter 2, Section 212.
It amazes me that the “professional journalists” who run these debates do not ask even the most basic question. Every Republican candidate states he or she is a conservative. I have yet to hear any of them ask any candidate: “You say you are a conservative. How do you define that word... what does it mean when you say you are a conservative?”
Generally speaking, most of the candidates will respond with an answer like “I believe in smaller government,” or “I oppose abortion and same sex marriages” or “We need a strong military” or “I believe in lowering the debt” or “I do not believe in socialized medicine.” These are all issues of concern to conservatives, but issues do not define conservatism. Principles that come from conservative philosophy define conservatives. If you do not know what those principles are, read on... but ask yourself: If you don’t know what conservative principles are, how can you be sure the person you support in political races is really conservative?
Every voter who thinks of him/herself as a conservative should be able to answer that question. How do you define “conservative?” Conservatism is a philosophy that supports very specific principles. It is not about issues – like gun control, abortion, trade, privacy, taxation, the size of government, etc, etc., etc. Principles and issues are not the same thing. If you do not realize that, you are likely part of the reason we keep electing people who say they are conservative but, once elected, prove to be anything but.
Most people confuse principles with issues. Because I am pro-life does not make me conservative. Being an Evangelical Christian does not make me a conservative. Because I believe in the Second Amendment and gun rights doesn’t make me conservative. It means I have conservative views on these specific issues.
Believing in the total Constitution is a conservative principle. Believing in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution is a conservative principle. Believing in truth (facts) is a conservative principle. These three things are the primary principles of conservative philosophy. Candidates who do not understand and accept the Constitution in total cannot be conservative. Those who do not believe in the Rule of Law that flows from the Constitution (and practice it) are not conservatives. Those who lie to make their “truth” more believable are not conservatives. How do we know when someone is lying to us? We don’t. We must take the time to look at candidate history: We find facts not in what they say, but in what they do.
Any candidate who opposes the right to bear arms cannot be a conservative because he or she rejects the Constitution. A person who supports the Second Amendment but not other portions of our Constitution is not a conservative. To enter America unlawfully violates the Constitution and any candidate who opposes upholding the dictates of the Constitution as it relates to immigration is not a conservative. To support the legalization of or amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in America is unconstitutional... and anyone who violates the Constitution is not a conservative because it violates conservative philosophy. If they will violate the Constitution in one way, they will violate it whenever they wish.
If you do not know the contents of America’s Constitution, then you cannot say with certainty that you are conservative. If you don’t know the contents of our Constitution, how can you select a conservative candidate? Answer: You cannot.
And that is how all of these cretins who currently serve as elected officials got into office. It is how they fooled so many Republicans who consider themselves conservative. They got elected because millions of people who call themselves “conservative” really don’t know what the word means, don’t understand the very basis of the philosophy – the Constitution – and thus cannot ask candidates questions designed to determine if they are just neo-conservative (pro world government via fascism) or a liberal (pro world government via socialism).
Because someone is a Christian doesn’t make them a conservative. It makes them a person who prefers a Christian view when government policies are legislated. The things Christians have accepted as constitutional for years have nothing to do with the Constitution. Christians have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting things like the removal of religious Christmas displays from in front of public buildings... that can be found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution says there shall be freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Because Christians are too mentally lazy to take a week and study the laws of the land contained in America’s Constitution, they have allowed Christianity to largely be removed from our society. Indeed, they have allowed the Constitution to be removed from our society.
Because too many Christians would rather spend money on Smart TVs and iPhones rather than banding together to pay the costs of fighting the “remove Christianity from public life” activities of their Godless opponents, we have lost much of our Christian culture. Any atheist or agnostic who is a Constitution-believing conservative strongly opposes these efforts to remove Christianity from our schools and public buildings. Why? Because they are conservative constitutionalists and these things have no constitutional jurisdiction.
You do not get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you support. It’s an all or nothing deal. You may disagree with it and you have every right to try and do what’s necessary to Amend the Constitution... that’s quite constitutional. But until the Constitution is Amended, you support what it says in plain English whether or not you agree with it. It is the law of the land and conservatives believe strongly in the Rule of Law. You do not apply “updated” or “worldly” definitions or personal opinions (like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of what the founding fathers might have meant had they been writing that document in 2016 rather than the late 1700s. If you cannot do that, you are probably not a conservative.
When I vote for someone, I am as sure as I can be that person is a conservative because if I listen closely to what they say a problem's solution is, it is either a constitutional answer or it is not. If they hold elected office, I can check their record to see if their deeds match their words. I would have a whole lot more faith in the judgment of American voters if I believed they had read the Constitution before voting for someone who claims to be conservative but who, in reality, is just another politician looking for access to the purse strings of the nation.
Is saving your nation worth a few evenings of your life? This is the most important election of your lifetime and whether you are willing to take a tiny amount of time to be able to identify those who want to enslave you versus those who are truly conservative and dedicated to freedom may make the difference in whether you live your life as a free person or in slavery.
As Kelleigh Nelson said in her recent NewsWithViews.com article, Trump is neither Republican or Democrat, neither liberal or conservative. He's just an American who loves his country. He's the best chance we've got of turning the corrupt establishment of Republicans and Democrats upside-down -- and that's why they're working so hard to discredit him.
© 2016 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved
Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall began her career in 1956 as a journalist with the Wyoming Eagle in Cheyenne. During her 20 years (plus) as a banker and bank consultant, she wrote extensively for The American Banker, Bank Marketing Magazine, Trust Marketing Magazine, was U.S. Consulting Editor for Private Banker International (London/Dublin), and other major banking industry publications. She has written seven non-fiction books about banking and taught private banking at Colorado University for the American Bankers Association. She has authored seven banking books, one dog book, and two works of fiction (about banking, of course). She has served on numerous Boards in her community.
Barnewall is the former editor of The National Peace Officer Magazine and as a journalist has written guest editorials for the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and Newsweek, among others. On the Internet, she has written for News With Views, World Net Daily, Canada Free Press, Christian Business Daily, Business Reform, and others. She has been quoted in Time, Forbes, Wall Street Journal and other national and international publications. She can be found in Who's Who in America, Who's Who of American Women, Who's Who in Finance and Business, and Who's Who in the World.
*******
Vice Prez Obama?
It’s high time to send the periscope up to make sure there’s no way possible for Obama to get back in when his time in office is over
By Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
January 25, 2016
While all others have failed during the past eight years, business dynamo Donald J. Trump says he’s the only one who can make deals with the Democrats on the way to making America great again.
Trump has already proved himself triumphant in delivering the art of the impossible.  He’s publicly slapped down Obama’s running dog media, changing their barks to whimpers,  and has left the hideous corpse of that blatant hypocrisy known as the politically correct struggling to get back out of the mud.
Not a bad record for a presidential hopeful selling himself to long suffering voters as a deal maker.
But what if other deals, hidden ones schemed out long before Trump arrived on the political scene, are also at play?
In the backbiting and bickering between Trump and Senator Ted Cruz, some are holding out hope they will not have to kiss Goodbye to a Trump/Cruz presidency and vice presidency.
That hope’s fast fading because not only are the dueling duo duking it out,  their fans continue to hurl insults at each other on social media and in the comment sections of publications like Canada Free Press (CFP).
Here’s hoping, like the naval commanders of submarines, they send up the periscope every once in awhile to see what else is out there.
At the risk of losing readers their lunch and dinner, what if Obama doesn’t have to rely on imposing martial law to cancel the 2016 presidential election?
Fundamental Transformation of America-OBSESSED Barack Obama
What if he gets around the two-term president law on the books by being appointed vice president by a president Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Michael Bloomberg?
Folks who naively cling to the technicolor dream that Hillary will be in jail before the presidential race runs out, or that Obama is about to be impeached, won’t want to believe in this nightmarish possibility.
After seven years under a president who has spent any time he’s not been vacationing or golfing, deliberately trying to destroy America, no one wants to believe in this horror.
But these are the possibilities of a 2-term president serving as a vice president within the Constitution as laid out in a 2000 article by James R. Whitson, entitled, ‘Can a two-term president be vice-president?’
CNN Interactive recently ran an article on whether Bill Clinton could constitutionally serve as Al Gore’s vice president titled “Why the Constitution permits a Gore-Clinton ticket”. It was written by Michael C. Dorf, vice dean and professor of law at Columbia University, where he teaches a class on constitutional law. He is also a contributor to the web site FindLaw and a co-author of a book titled “On Reading the Constitution”. As an amateur presidential historian and a constitutional law enthusiast, I was very interested in reading his opinion. I disagreed with his interpretation and was going to write it off as just a difference of opinion. Surely a professor who teaches constitutional law wouldn’t let his personal political views cloud his professional judgement! Unfortunately, when I read the last four paragraphs of the piece, I had to concede the possibility. After spending the entire article explaining the legal reasons he believes Clinton could serve as Gore’s VP, he then tells us Clinton SHOULD be Gore’s VP! His reasoning: because “we, as a people, thrive on [Clinton]”.  Ignoring Mr. Dorf’s blatant partisan justification, I’d like to explain why I believe he is wrong and why the Supreme Court would not allow a two-term president to serve as vice president.
First, here are the relevant passages of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1 (5th paragraph)
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
12th Amendment (last sentence)
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
22nd Amendment (first sentence)
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
The general consensus has always been that after you’ve been president twice, you’re no longer eligible to be president, and therefore you’re also ineligible to be the vice president. Mr. Dorf’s position that Clinton could be vice president (or even president again if something were to befall Gore) relies on the literal wording of three key phrases.
•Article II says who is eligible to be president
•The 12th Amendment says anyone constitutionally ineligible to be president can not be vice president.
•The 22nd Amendment says no on can be elected president more than twice.
Mr. Dorf’s says that the language of the 12th Amendment “only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are ‘ineligible to the office’ of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of president” because he meets the three eligibility requirements set out in Article II. “He is only disqualified (by the 22nd Amendment) from being elected to that office”. According to Mr. Dorf “the 22nd Amendment’s prohibition on running for a third presidential term is not a condition of the office of president….[it] does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president”.
In plain English, since the 12th Amendment says anyone eligible to be the president can be the vice president, and since Clinton meets the eligibility requirements in Article II (he’s a natural born citizen, he’s over 35, and he’s been a resident for at least 14 years), and since the 22nd Amendment only says you can’t be elected to more than two terms, it is perfectly OK for Clinton to be Gore’s VP and then ascend to the presidency if necessary.
There are three reasons why I believe this reasoning wouldn’t convince the Supreme Court.
1. Depends to much on semantics, a literal reading, or what Mr. Dorf himself calls “textualism”.  If the Supreme Court were to take every word of the Constitution at its most literal, we would lose a lot of freedom. For instance, the 1st Amendment guarantees “freedom of speech”. Using that literal phrasing, symbolic speech, such as wearing a black armband at school or burning a U.S. flag, could be banned because it isn’t literal speech.
Article II, written in 1787, uses the phrase “no person…shall be eligible to the office of the President…”. The 22nd Amendment, written 164 years later, uses the phrase “no person shall be elected to the office of the President…”. Language is not a constant; it is fluid. We can’t expect that people in Eisenhower’s day would write or speak the same way they did in Washington’s. It could be credibly argued that the 1951 phrase “elected to the office” and the 1787 phrase “eligible to the office” are equal.
2. Ignores the intent and spirit of the amendment.  I think it’s safe to say that the writers of the 22nd Amendment did not want anyone being president more than twice. The Supreme Court often takes the intent of the author into account when making its rulings.
Mr. Dorf says that the 22nd Amendment ” places no limits whatsoever on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected”, and that it would be ” perfectly permissible” for a two term president to get a third term by ascending to the office from the vice presidency. If the authors of the amendment were only concerned with how many times someone was elected president and didn’t care how many times someone assumed the presidency, why would they have added that little known second part that specifically limits the later election of someone who assumes the office? The authors clearly did not want someone who assumed a large part of someone else’s presidential term to be able to have another eight years at the helm. (Italics: CFP)
The spirit of the amendment prevents any one person from becoming too powerful. Mr. Dorf’s assertion that “Clinton would hardly be bidding for dictatorial powers” since the VP has no real powers is not sound. A popular two-term president finding someone else to be president and then having himself made vice president has the making of a puppet presidency all over it.
3. Assumes no new eligibility requirement. Mr. Dorf explicitly assumes that the 22nd Amendment puts no new conditions on presidential eligibility. But it could be argued that the 22nd Amendment is not just a disqualification of those elected to two terms, but a new eligibility requirement for the office: to be eligible to the office of president you must be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, a resident for 14 years, and not have been elected to the office of the President more than twice.
Mr. Dorf, politically motivated as he may be, makes a case for his opinion. And if the Constitution were a rigid, inflexible document, he might be right. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is more concerned with making sure the Constitution does what it was meant to do, than it is with semantics and word games.
UPDATE (10/1/2007): On the Late Show with David Letterman, Bill Clinton discussed this scenario in regards to his running as VP for his wife.
Letterman: Now there was a discussion last week, and there is I guess a greater discussion, and there’s some confusion, and maybe I’m the only one confused about the eligibility of a man who has been elected twice as President to possibly be named later on the ticket as Vice President. Constitutionally speaking, can that happen?”
Clinton: I don’t believe so. There are some people who believe it can, and they have contorted readings of the amendment, the 22nd Amendment. But I believe as a matter of general interpretation, you’re supposed to read all the Constitution including all the Amendments as if they were written almost on the same day at the same moment, so they’re consistent with one another. And the Constitution says the qualifications for Vice President are the same as those for President. Now you can read that to mean ‘to serve,’ not ‘to run for.’ But I just don’t believe it’s consistent with the spirit of the Constitution for someone who’s been President twice to be elected Vice President. I just don’t think it’s Constitutional. I don’t think it’s right and I wouldn’t want to do that. I’d want to do whatever I could do to be of highest and best use for her, but there are lots of wonderful people out there, including all the people that are running this time would be good Vice Presidents. And, that’s just not in the cards.
Eligibility detractors will undoubtedly make the argument that Obama cannot be vice president because he was ineligible to be president in the first place.
But the reality is he has remained in the Oval office for more than seven long years, and no one has done diddly-squat about it.
This is an election where folk can’t take anything for granted.
But given all that America’s been through and is still going through, can there really be any doubt that anyone other than Clinton would be better for the future of America’s children and grandchildren than the Fundamental Transformation of America-OBSESSED Barack Obama?
Politics has become the ‘profession’  where people go to get rich.  With voter fraud now a depressing reality,  once a candidate gets elected there’s no way of keeping them away from the public trough.
It’s high time to send the periscope up to make sure there’s no way possible for Obama to get back in when his time in office is over
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com
*******
Lies My RINO Told Me
There are other lies that are endlessly repeated, but these are the top five. We hear them every two years, and frankly, they are getting stale.
By Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives
January 19, 2016
Every election cycle we hear the same arguments from the RINO/Establishment class. These claims cannot be justified in any way, and yet they are articles of faith, venerated words of wisdom, absolutes in the political world, and the Establishment asks us, nay demands, we follow their prescribed political program lest disaster overtake us. These overarching truths have little to no evidence to support them, and at this point, given the utter failure of their employment in the real world of electoral politics, can be classified as outright lies. Their purpose is to anesthetize the Conservative base, to lull us back into our collective intellectual coma, to force us off the field so that the elites can continue to run the show. What, pray tell, are these lies?
Lie #1 - There is a Conservative Litmus test for candidates and we refuse to accept any but the most pure of heart.
This particular error was recently promoted at American Thinker by Mark Griswald who stated:
“And Republicans, or should I say a subset of Republicans, engage in a quadrennial event referred to by some as the conservative litmus test, or the circular firing squad, in which they enjoy comparing their chosen Republican presidential candidate to Ronald Reagan and comparing every other Republican candidate to Karl Marx (or possibly Groucho Marx).  The length of this festival of futility usually runs from late November in the year preceding a presidential election and can end as late as the first Wednesday in November of the following year if the Democrat ends up winning the general election.”
This is demonstrably false. At this very moment in the political season Donald Trump is well in the lead of the Republican field. Trump is in no way Ronald Reagan; he doesn’t even play him on TV. Trump has never been a staunch Conservative, and yet he is wildly popular among many of these benighted litmus test shooters. The reasons for Trump’s popularity are outside the scope of this essay, but suffice it to say it is largely because he is not Jeb Bush, or any subset thereof. And he stands for something, rather than offering the same content-free kumbaya speeches we have come to expect from our betters in the GOP. People will overlook a lot for some refreshing honesty. (I personally don’t see it with Trump, but that just illustrates how wrong the claim of a litmus test really is.)
Those who make this “purity” claim ignore the many Conservative supporters of George W. Bush in 2000, ignore the fact that the very same Conservatives supported his father - a proven RINO. Apparently not letting the Establishment choose the candidate is somehow, in the eyes of the RINO wing, a type of treason, as though Conservatives have no right to ask for someone who mirrors their ideals.
And given the fact that Conservatives have been betrayed over and over by
people who have been our best friends until they get into office, is it any wonder we seek someone who appears honest? Take John Boehner; he was a lion of Conservatism, a man who railed against his own party for being squishy and weak. In the end Boehner morphed into Gerald R. Ford with a tan. He is not alone in this; Eric Cantor did the same. John Kasich used to be a staunch Conservative and now he bashes our side. So did Newt Gingrich. Pat Toomey. In point of fact, we have a dreary history of Washington swallowing our best and brightest (Nikki Haley being the most recent example of a turncoat Tea Party member, but there are plenty of others.)  Since we cannot trust politicians to keep faith, we must find a candidate we believe will at least be honest and not just use us to get elected.
Traitors used to be executed by firing squad. If there is a circular firing squad it is a citizen’s duty.
Reagan himself was once a Democrat, by the way, and he never stopped being one. As The Gipper himself put it, the Party left him. And Reagan made some huge errors, such as signing Simpson Simpson. But we forgave him because his heart was in the right place; he wasn’t just lying to us then turning his colors.
Lie #2 - An Angry Candidate turns off voters and is unelectable.
Is that so?  What evidence is there to support this claim, at least at the Presidential level.
We just don’t know because the GOP has not run an angry candidate. Was Romney angry? McCain was an angry man - angry at the GOP base, but lovey-dovey with the media and the Democrats. Bush Jr.? Bob Dole? Bush Sr.?  All of these candidates eschewed anger for reasonableness, for clear-headed policy wonkishness and comity. People have forgotten, but Ronald Reagan actually WAS an angry man in many ways; Reagan coined the term “liberal” as an insult, for example. Reagan called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire” and mocked Jimmy Carter with “there you go again!”.
What RINOs fail to grasp is there is a huge difference between being angry and being nasty. Reagan was righteously angry. He saw America being destroyed by the Left and by the petty power dreams of Democrats and fellow traveler-Republicans. He would never have been elected had he NOT been angry. But he was not nasty, and he balanced his anger with his optimism. Sadly, we are told to not be angry and to hold a false sense of optimism. These things are evident to voters, who can smell b.s. A Republican who is NOT angry comes across as a smarmy politician, someone who doesn’t believe in what he says but is simply trying to win votes for his political fortunes. Barack Obama has wrecked the country; that must make one angry.
And Reagan proves the point that there is no Conservative Litmus test.
Richard Nixon was seen as an angry man, and yet he was elected to office. Only Barry Goldwater could be defined as an angry GOP loser.
So there really is no evidence that being angry means you are going to lose.
American Thinker’s local Establishmentarian James Arlandson thinks so. In his AT piece he states:
“Trump: He was much smoother this time – getting better each time.  His bluntness appeals to certain voters.  Was Nikki Haley right about loudest voices and anger from some in the GOP?  Yes, Trump says.  “I am angry!”  Then he gave a rundown of the country’s mess, saying our country is run by incompetent people”
“The selfie voters and forty-two percent see, I believe, exactly what he says: an angry man.  Will this appeal to them?  Highly doubtful.”
And yet Trump is the epitome of a crossover candidate, one who is appealing to new demographics.
#3 - Republican candidates must appeal to the center to win the general election.
Arlandson also argues that point in his piece:
“What do the selfie- voters and the forty-two percent see?  A confident man.  But is he too conservative for them?  The primary voters need to take that into consideration.  They also see someone who, in my view, is not that appealing in the externals.  He seems a little too scary, as if he would move too fast as president.”
What does James Arlandson base this determination on?  In the usual RINO fashion he is saying we cannot win with bold colors, but must rather offer soft pastels. Conservatism is not a popular thing, we are told, and we must move to the center, be all things to all people, and coax the voters with likeable personalities and content-free campaigns.
How well has that worked out for us?  Since 1984 the GOP has offered this same campaign stratagem, and it has been at its absolute best a recipe for a photo finish. Bush Sr. won only because he claimed the mantle of Reagan. Bush Jr. actually lost the first election and won by a slim margin his re-election - at a time of war when Americans are loathe to change horses midstream. We’ve had a parade of “bum of the month” candidates; Romney, McCain, Dole. Prior to Reagan we had milquetoast candidates such as Gerald Ford. The GOP has offered only three actual Conservatives since the Roaring ‘20’s and Calvin Coolidge, and only one of them lost. But we are told with absolute confidence that Conservatism is a loser.
Where is the evidence?
(By the way, what does “move to fast as President” mean?  Has Mr. Arlandson missed the fact that Barack Hussein Obama moved faster than a jackrabbit in love and was re-elected by a solid majority?)
#4 We have to choose our candidate based on “electability”.
Robert Morrison appeals to this RINO argument at AT as well:
“But we cannot discount likeability. George W. Bush doubtless owes his two squeaker elections to things like Al Gore’s impatient sighs in the 2000 debates and blueblood John Kerry’s haughty disdain for his opponent four years later.
Ted Cruz has made a point of his willingness to buck the Establishment in Washington. That’s certainly positive. But he has seemingly bucked everyone else, too. There are virtually no endorsements of Cruz from any of his congressional colleagues. He also seems not to know how far to take his criticisms. He called his own Majority Leader a liar on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That conduct used to get a senator censured. Question: If he cannot get along with his own party members, how likely is he to get along with any of the Opposition?”
Who exactly decides the “likeability” factor? It is generally the news media, the Democratic Party, and the Establishment wing of the GOP.
Mr. Morrison seems to think that being unpopular with his colleagues makes Ted Cruz“unlikable” but isn’t that rather a testament to his honorable nature?  During the election of 2008 we were told about how John McCain’s “maverick” status was such a boon, and yet now Ted Cruz’s same status is “unlikeability”. McCain WAS unlikable; a testy old codger who would have been yelling at children on his lawn had he not been running for President. And McCain’s most unlikable feature was his tendency to knife his own friends in the back. McCain’s “maverick” status was conferred on him because he bucked his conservative base on numerous issues. Cruz bucks his RINO colleagues in the Senate to fulfill his campaign promises. Who is the more likable?
So often the RINOs cite William F. Buckley’s polemic about supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. I would suggest we modify that adage to say we should support the most delectable Conservative who won’t betray us. Recent history has been most unkind in that regard, and as a result far too often we end up with a Progressive instead of a Conservative. America has continues its long, horrible slide into the abyss precisely because we keep nominating candidates who are great lions until they get into office then move to the left. We cannot make any headway in rolling back any of the things the Left has shoved down our throats because our side is afraid to fight. Even if we are going to lose, better to die as brave men, with one swift stroke of the sword, than cowering in our beds, hemorrhaging from a thousand paper cuts.
Morrison also argues that we must be immigration friendly to a fault, which brings us to RINO lie #5:
#5 “We cannot restrict immigration - either legal or illegal - or we will suffer political catastrophe”.
Morrison argues at the end of his piece that a desire to restrict immigration is a
political loser and the Party will suffer. He claims Eisenhower and Reagan prove that being immigration friendly is critical to success.
Interesting; Ike kicked nearly two million people out of the country with Operation Wetback. Reagan tried to tighten border security after the Simpson Rizzoli Simpson amnesty, and he always called that his biggest blunder. Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924, shutting immigration down completely.
The “Know Nothing” Party opposing immigration in a nation with a large frontier that is labor starved is a world of difference to a reasonable desire to stop millions of people from pouring in illegally at a time when our nation is heavily populated and unemployment or underemployment is rampant; when America is threatened by terrorists who can walk across the border; where political correctness and multiculturalism guarantees that the new immigrants are unassimilatable. America is the third most populous nation on Earth, yet we take in the highest number of immigrants of any country by far. Any reasonable person asked believes we should restrict people from breaking and entering. Nobody is asking for restricted LEGAL immigration (which, frankly, we need to restrict at this point and is popular with the American people). But that isn’t good enough for the RINO class, the whores to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who want foreign labor because it is cheap. Closing the border is popular with the public, no matter what the GOP elites would have us believe. Even legal immigrants like the idea.
And nobody except Muslims and politicians worry about pausing immigration from ISIS controlled territory. This is entirely common sense, yet the GOP Establishment argues we have no right to stop anyone from coming here.
But the RINO position is that we must not stop people from coming here - period.
And this is justified by the argument that we must have the Latino vote to win elections. Well, first off, what does that actually accomplish? Our purpose is to unify the country. Pandering to a Balkanized voting block does nothing but feed the current crisis. Also, it is not true that we need Hispanics to win; Mitt Romney would still have lost had he garnered a majority of Hispanic votes. He would have had to win the whole enchilada; he was too weak with his traditional base for Hispanic votes to matter. The GOP can win without the Latinos.
There are other lies that are endlessly repeated, but these are the top five. We hear them every two years, and frankly, they are getting stale. I wish the RINO community would at least try to update their arguments, give us something fresh for a change.
Better yet, go away. We’ve had enough of your condescension.
Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Review and has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu Timothy can be reached at: tim@timothybirdnow.com
*******
American Politics Items
Bernie Sanders and the Threat to the Left’s Aspirational Brand
By Daniel Greenfield 
Thursday, January 14, 2016
A big part of how the left won was by transforming its image.
Go back a hundred years and the left had much the same makeup as it does now. But the image of a typical leftist was ragged, angry and unstable. A ranting bombthrower at best. A ridiculous leafletter at worst. One step away from a criminal. Not at all the sort of person you wanted to be.
And the “sort of person you want to be” is how the left makes over the country in its image.
One of the things this season of South Park has been good at is capturing how people unthinkingly embrace left-wing ideas and attitudes because they are aspirational. They know very little of the theory of the political correctness they embrace. All they know is that they represent the values and attitudes of a higher social class. A social class that shops for organic fair trade stuff at Whole Foods.
It’s a class issue.
The left originally wanted to be seen as associated with the lower class, even though it actually came out of the upper classes. Political activism requires leisure. It’s not really for working people. This created the image of a “dirty” leftist dressed in working clothes.
But without being able to actually organize enough workers as canon fodder in a violent revolution, the way they had in Russia, this image was a dead end. So the left embraced its upper class roots. It became a movement of the glittering people. A moneyed class choked with its own compassion.
And the conservatives were depicted as fat Walmart shoppers, bible-thumpers, gun-lovers, ignorant, inbred, dirty… you’ve heard the list. Conservatives were lower class. Not aspirational at all.
The left was New York and Los Angeles. The right was flyover country. The left was spending more to buy less food and clothes. The right shopped in bulk and got value for its money. The left was always getting a higher education without actually working. The right worked without the education.
This was the new liberal brand. It made liberalism seem like a leisure class with the money and time to pursue its pleasures and its goals while conservatives lived a lower class lifestyle.
Liberalism had become a movement of upper class elites violently hostile to the working class and openly contemptuous of it. That contempt was returned leading to the political disasters of the Democratic Party among white voters, particularly in the south. But at the same time it made the liberal into an aspirational figure.
Colleges became finishing schools for teaching youth the manners and attitudes of a new elite. The political emphasis of the curriculum was the point. If you wanted to move up the ladder, you needed to embrace the left’s way of thinking and living. If you didn’t, you were part of the dirty lower class.
The message was unstated and insidious. It’s embedded as an attitude that the younger generation quickly picks up on from popular culture and then from their education. The path upward lies through the left. The left is the movement of the beautiful and successful people. It’s the future.
That’s the power of a brand. A brand can make a product seem like it’s associated with an elite until in a cargo cult response people will buy that product to seem like members of the elite.
But the left isn’t a brand. It’s an ideology. And the ideology looks a lot more like
Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn than the Hollywood stars and starlets who are used as window dressing or even Obama, who did an invaluable service for the left’s brand by making it seem cool.
To thrive the left has to seem cool. It has to seem like the movement of the people who have money, who have fun, who have the lifestyle that you want.
The moment it becomes obvious that it’s actually a movement of old, bitter angry people like Bernie Sanders who want to destroy everything worthwhile in life because it runs afoul of their ideology, the brand is torched and the left goes back to being a pack of surly outsiders handing out leaflets.
And that’s where Bernie Sanders and Corbyn threaten the left’s aspirational brand.
Nobody outside the left aspires to be Bernie Sanders. Just like they don’t aspire to be Ralph Nader or Jeremy Corbyn or Vladimir Lenin. Even Hillary Clinton is a shaky proposition. Nobody really wants to be her or spend time with her. (The same couldn’t be said of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.)
Much of the population has a poor grasp of politics and little knowledge of the issues. And even less interest in both those things. Its responses are common sense, but lack any depth. It is correct in the broad strokes, but often very wrong in the details.
It understands quite well that there is an elite social and economic class with special access to opportunities of all sorts. It has little understanding of who makes up that class, but it can point to a person and recognize that he belongs to that class. Its attitude toward the values of that class are a mixture of mockery, resentment and aspiration. That is how the left seeds its values nationally.
But take away the sense of a superior class partying forever with JFK, Bill and Barack, a glittering set of golden boys who enjoy the good life, and the left is reduced to its ridiculous ideas.
And yet the left must be reduced to those ideas.
The left is intolerant of compromise and uses every victory as proof that the time for compromise is past. It is convinced of its absolute rightness and that the people can and must embrace its ideas once the fog has been cleared away. And so the left can’t help exposing itself for what it is. No matter how good its disguises are, the moment comes when it announces what it really stands for.
And eventually it announces it so baldly that everyone has to understand that this is what it is.
The left’s political strategy in the West has depended on delaying that day for as long as possible,
compromising their way to power, building elaborate networks of front groups, taking control of a wide variety of institutions, undermining their opponents and making their identity aspirational.
But within the left, there’s a tension over the slowness and delays of such a project.
Much like the conflict between Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, the left is caught between those who want to follow a long-range plan, those who want to speed it up and those who want to bring it all down now. And just as the Arab Spring rewarded the most violent factions, political instability and left-wing victories encourage the most extreme forces on the left.
The left presents itself to Americans as an intangible, an attitude rather than a movement, a value rather than a set of ideas, an aspirational lifestyle of clothes, food and trendy activism, a fun way of life rather than a fanatical ideology that seeks to control and dominate every area of life.
The ruptures on the left threaten that disguise. And without that disguise, the left reverts back to what it was a hundred years ago.
Daniel Greenfield -- Bio and Archives
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
*******
Scared: Hillary sends her secret weapon - Chelsea - to attack Bernie for his ‘single-payer’ desires
False attack from a frightened, failing, candidate.

By Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives 
January 13, 2016
As Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to shake apart, it’s becoming clear that the confidence she displays in public is slipping away behind the scenes. With New Hampshire polling showing her trailing crazy coot Bernie Sanders in every major demographic, she’s shifting into attack mode.  Every attack needs a weapon, so she’s calling out the big guns. No it’s not Bill.
It’s her daughter, Chelsea.
Apparently, Hillary’s people are living under the delusion that, somewhere, there exist people who care what Chelsea Clinton thinks about ...anything.  Or maybe they’ve decided that the best way to prop-up an achievement-free candidate is to sic her achievement-free daughter on the opposition.  Whatever the reasoning, Chelsea has come out swinging against Bernie Sanders.
Clinton was campaigning in New Hampshire on behalf of her mother, Hillary Clinton, ostensibly to tout the campaign’s early childhood education plan. But she took sharp aim at Sanders, who advocates for a single-payer system that would place control of health care in the hands of the federal government.
“I never thought we would be arguing about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in the Democratic primary,” Clinton told Democrats in Manchester, one of three stops she made during her swing.
She said Sanders would “dismantle” Obamacare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Medicare—along with private insurance programs.
According to Chelsea, Bernie would allow Republican Governors to strip healthcare from millions. Since this is coming from a Clinton, it’s not surprising that it’s an outright lie. Bernie is a staunch supporter of single-payer healthcare. I don’t agree with government-run medicine, and I’m not going to waste too much time defending Sanders, but to suggest that his plan would leave millions without insurance is patently false.
As the Huffington Post reports:
For the last few weeks, Clinton has been attacking Sanders over his longtime advocacy for single-payer health care. That’s a system in which everybody, or almost everybody, gets insurance directly from a government-run program.
Countries like Taiwan, Sweden and Canada have single-payer. The U.S. has a version of it in Medicare, which serves the elderly and disabled. Many progressives have long dreamed of extending it to everybody else. Some even call it “Medicare for all.”
During his Senate career, Sanders has repeatedly introduced single-payer legislation—most recently in 2013, when he introduced the American Health Security Act. And while Sanders has also voted for less ambitious measures, including the Affordable Care Act, he has always envisioned those initiatives as incremental steps toward a single-payer system.
The really fun part of this is that, prior to 2008, Hillary had long arguedin favor of pretty much exactly what Bernie wants.
As Hillary said in 1994:
“I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country. And regardless of the referendum outcome in California, it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be. So for those who think that building on the existing public-private system with an employer mandate is radical, I think they are extremely short-sighted, but that is their choice.
...The market cannot deliver universal coverage in the foreseeable future, and any compromise that people try to suggest that would permit the market to have a few years to try to deliver universal coverage without a mandate that would take effect to actually finish the job will guarantee a single payer heath care system.”
So what does all of this mean?
It means Hillary and her DNC-elite allies are genuinely scared. Bernie’s primary performance has been better than anyone expected and, while Hillary’s still the odds-on favorite, embarrassing losses in Iowa and New Hampshire could spell real trouble.  If internal polling showed Hillary with a commanding lead, she’d have no reason to launch such a transparent attack.
Since they’ve chosen this path, the Clinton campaign must be looking at some truly terrible numbers.
Even Axelrod is calling them out….
*******

Axelrod on Chelsea Clinton Sanders Attack
Uploaded on Jan 12, 2016

*******
Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.
*******
*******
Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address
A response to the Republican Establishment response
By Mike Henkins -- Bio and Archives 
January 13, 2016
On Tuesday night President Obama delivered the yearly State of the Union address to the nation.  This is an event where the President speaks to how well the nation is doing under his management. It is also an event in which the opposition party stages politically motivated gestures to gain some much needed publicity and the Washington D.C. pundit class spends hours analyzing it all.
The “opposition” party this year was the Republican Party. This year the Republican Establishment chose the Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, to deliver their response to the President Obama’s State of the Union (S.O.T.U.) address. But that is not what Gov. Haley delivered. She was tasked to deliver the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising (e.S.O.T.U.).
In this, which she has admitted, was talking directly about Mr. Trump  which by default means his supporters of which I am.
That being said, I have chosen myself to deliver the response to the Republican Establishment response to the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address.
Gov. Haley, the Republican Establishment, Washington D.C. Establishment, Washington D.C. Punditry, friends, colleagues and pets. I am honored to have chosen myself to deliver the response to the Republican Establishment response to the Stymieing of Trump’s Uprising formally known as the State of the Union address.  Many issues were discussed in the S.O.T.U. but the real message was that Mr. Trump and the citizens who are flocking to support him from both parties are a dangerous mob of racists, immigrant bashing, uncouth rabble rousers who are a fanatics threatening the status quo and the Washington D.C. Establishment.  You are trying to project the vision of the movie “Gangs of New York” with chaos in the streets, poor innocent illegal immigrants hanging from lamp posts, and vengeful mobs hunting down anyone with brown or black skin. All of this being the result of Mr. Trump usurping the kingmakers and becoming President of the United States on a wave of uneducated anger and rage.
You are very much mistaken and personally, and what I would like to think is also the feelings of millions of others Americans, I am not only offended, I am angrier than I was before this misguided attempt to slyly condemn Mr. Trump and those who are supporting him. But just how I and many others will express our rage is not going to be the vision of hell you would like the nation to believe.
We will be expressing our rage by becoming even more educated on the true facts of immigration, the true repercussions of the Omnibus spending bill, and we will truly be even more resolved in doing whatever we can do to see that Mr. Trump gets elected.
Mr. Trump is not everyone’s perfect candidate, we realize no one ever is, but he is willing to fight the continuous dereliction of Washington D.C. Establishment fulfilling their sworn Oaths of Office, the negligence of reporting false truths or the twisting of the facts that would reveal the true nature and state of our union. Mr. Trump represents the change many have been begging for, have been promised before, but never happened.
The reason that Mr. Trump is leading in the polls should be obvious by now, and maybe the Washington D.C. Establishment has figured it out but wishes to ignore its message. Gov. Haley’s e.S.O.T.U. proved this without a doubt.  Now more than ever Mr. Trump represents the one true message that millions can finally send with the effect it deserves. It is this:
We no longer trust you, what you say, and what you say you will do. We no longer will be supporting the status quo and the lies that keep it in place.  We will fight back against the smears and misconceptions being perpetuated by you and the political pundits who deliver it.
We are done with you.
In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Trump for delivering this message for us. You are the best red white and blue bad comb over YUGE middle finger one could hope for. We pray for your safety and your hair.
Thank you.
M.A. Meddybemps
Maine.
Mike Henkins
I am just an ordinary fat guy living in Maine who has been followingand commentating on politics for over 20 years. I work in sales andenjoy life with my girls, Shannon my wonderful wife and our daughter Lily the best little girl ever.
*******
Jeb's Potty Mouth
His divisive attacks hurt his cause
By Matthew VadumBio and Archives 
January 12, 2016
As his sputtering presidential campaign remains on political life support, the typically polite and demure Jeb Bush is desperately lashing out at GOP frontrunner Donald Trump and others in the Republican field.
During the campaign Bush has called Trump a “buffoon,” “clown,” “jerk,” “bully,” a “chaos candidate” with “crazy” ideas about foreign policy, and not “a serious candidate.” Establishment Republicans like Bush are savaging Trump with a ferocity they rarely deploy against Democrats.
These increasingly vicious attacks are coming from the Bush family scion because this is his last chance in the 2016 primary race. Without strong showings in early voting states he faces electoral oblivion.
Trump has long been crushing Bush in the polls and around 20 percent of Democratic voters polled say they would abandon their own party and vote for Trump in the general election should he become the GOP nominee. (Only 14 percent of Republican voters say they would vote for Hillary Clinton should Trump secure his party’s nomination.)
So Bush is attacking Trump, accusing him of being an interloper in the Republican Party. This is a curious approach because Trump’s image as a sincere albeit abrasive political outsider who can’t be bought or controlled by elites is precisely what makes him so attractive as a candidate among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Outsiders are in; partisan yes men are out.
Although Trump has successfully tapped into voters’ anger, he remains a “buddy of the Clintons” and is not a true conservative, Bush said on the viewer-less MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.
“He’s the only person on the stage that’s given money to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and their foundation,” Bush said.
“I think he’s probably the only guy that invited Hillary Clinton to one of his weddings. His views are closer aligned to Hillary Clinton’s than that of a conservative,” said the most aggressively pro-open borders candidate in the Republican field.
 “How can he beat Hillary Clinton when we get into the general election? He’ll get crushed.”
Bush’s claim that Trump is still the Clintons’ “buddy” seems particularly ludicrous given that the real estate investor is the only candidate who has gone for Hillary’s jugular.
Trump aggressively mocks Hillary. He called her extended bathroom break during the Democrats’ pre-Christmas debate “disgusting,” said she lacks “the strength or the stamina” to be president, and ridiculed her for getting “schlonged” by Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries that had been hers to lose. Even more significantly he is the only Republican with the political guts to go after her disgraceful complicity in her husband’s serial abuses of women.
And Bush, like so many Republican elites, is personally cozy with former Secretary of State Clinton. The politically tone-deaf Bush presented the Liberty Medal to Clinton on Sept. 10, 2013—the eve of the first anniversary of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya—when he was chairman of the board of trustees of the National Constitution Center, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit. (U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty could not be reached for comment.)
Of course, Hillary, the progressive, Alinskyite former senator and first lady who has long been at war with the Constitution, seems an unlikely recipient of a medal from an organization chartered by Congress to “disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a non-partisan basis.” The Center indicated she was given the honor “in recognition of her lifelong career in public service and for her ongoing advocacy efforts on behalf of women and girls around the globe.”
Presumably Hillary’s efforts to smear and silence the women victimized by her sexual-predator husband were not taken into account in medal deliberations.
During last month candidates’ debate, Bush labeled Trump “a chaos candidate” who’d be “a chaos president,” and not “the commander-in-chief we need to keep our country safe.”
Trump shot back saying “Jeb doesn’t really believe I’m unhinged. He said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. It’s been a total disaster. Nobody cares. And frankly, I’m the most solid person up here. I built a tremendous company and all I want to do is make America great again.”
It’s hard to argue with Trump’s assessment of Bush’s motives.
Bush’s attacks on other candidates are relatively mild, restrained in tone, and often fact-based.
After describing himself as “a reform-minded conservative that got to do big things,” Jeb criticized New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last month, accusing him of poor management. Florida was “AAA bond-rated” but New Jersey has “had credit downgrades,” Bush said. “We led the nation in job growth. New Jersey hasn’t done as well.”
An ad by the pro-Jeb super PAC, Right to Rise, implied Bush was a better governor than Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich because Bush, unlike his two rivals, opposed Medicaid expansion in 2013 in his state. (Bush had already left office in Florida but he reportedly worked behind the scene to fight the expansion.)
Bush campaign adviser April Ponnuru attacked Carly Fiorina this past September for “[a]s recently as 2013” supporting “Obamacare’s most hated feature: the individual mandate.” Fiorina acknowledged her past support for the mandate but said she longer does.
Bush smeared Cruz and Rubio in October 2013 for trying to defund Obamacare, a move that led to a partial government shutdown. “Tactically it was a mistake to focus on something that couldn’t be achieved,” Bush said. Republican senators’ tactics, which helped reinvigorate opposition to Obamacare and cleared the way for the GOP landslide in 2014, were “embarrassing,” Jeb said at the time.
In a petty move, Bush has criticized Rubio for missing Senate votes and hearings. Right to Rise echoed Bush in attack ads. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Nov. 1, Bush mocked the three sitting U.S. senators in the GOP race—Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul—for not being governors. Jeb said that, unlike that trio, he “got to be governor of a state and accomplish[ed] big things.”
Bush who, despite having been regarded as having a fairly conservative track record in Florida, has lurched to the left since leaving the governor’s mansion.
Bush pretends to be conservative but has made it clear in other ways that he’s not. In 2013 he said in the Oval Office he would emulate “War on Poverty” Democrat icon Lyndon Johnson. In 2014 Bush said he might have to “lose the primary to win the general [election]” in 2016.  By this he meant he’d pursue centrist voters during primary season so he wouldn’t have to lurch from the right to the center after winning the nomination.
Bush’s stratagem isn’t working.
At time of writing, Trump was leading the Republican pack nationally. According to RealClearPolitics averages, Trump is at 34 percent, followed by Ted Cruz (20.7 percent), Marco Rubio (11.7 percent), Ben Carson (10.0 percent), Chris Christie (4.3 percent), and Jeb Bush (3.7 percent). Bush peaked nationally at 17.8 percent on July 13 last year.
In New Hampshire, Trump is polling 31 percent, followed by Rubio (13.3 percent), Cruz (10.5 percent), and Bush in fourth place at 10 percent. Bush peaked in that state at 17 percent on April 11 last year. In Iowa, Trump has (27.4 percent) trailing Cruz (30.2 percent). Bush is far behind in fifth place at 4.8 percent). Bush peaked at 14 percent from April 14 through April 23 last year.
Bush can’t even catch a break in his home state of Florida where he was governor from 1999 to 2007. In the Sunshine State, Trump is polling at 33 percent, followed by Cruz (21 percent), Rubio (16 percent), and with Bush far behind at 11 percent.
Bush’s net favorable rating among Republicans has collapsed since he launched his campaign last summer. Bush began the cycle with a net favorable rating of +27 (54 percent favorable, 27 percent unfavorable). But as of Jan. 5 it was below water, falling to -1 (44 percent favorable, 45 percent unfavorable), absolute rock bottom among Republican candidates, according to Gallup.
If Jeb Bush thinks he can secure the GOP nomination by insulting Donald Trump, he’s got another thing coming.
Matthew Vadum, matthewvadum.blogspot.com/, is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at Amazon.com (US), Amazon.ca (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).
Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.
Matthew can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
*******
Also See:
Will Donald Trump be the Next President?
(Part 1)
06 June 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/06/blog-post.html
*******

Who's Pushing For The New World Order?

$
0
0
*******
*******

*******
Internet: Pope Francis’ ‘Gift of God’ or Orwellian Power Base?
Internet has become more Orwellian than the Pope Francis-described 'Gift of God' because just as it is everywhere else in Marxism, some animals are more equal than others
By Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives 
January 15, 2016
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when Pope Francis hooked up with former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt in the Vatican this morning.
But all the flies are buzzing at the White House over what the Democrats hope is the corpse of the Republican Establishment-mangled Trump/Cruz/Carson carcasses.
“Revealed: in a sign of importance pontiff places on the internet, Francis will hold 15-minute meetup with executive chairman of Google parent company, Alphabet (Guardian, Jan 13, 2016)
“A source close to the Vatican, who was familiar with the details of the meeting but not authorised to speak on the record, confirmed the brief meeting would take place on Friday. Another source familiar with the meeting said Schmidt was due to meet with the pope privately along with Jared Cohen, a former US state department official who is now head of Google Ideas. Schmidt co-wrote a book with Cohen in 2013 called The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business.
“Google declined to respond to several requests for comment over the past 24 hours about the meeting. The planned encounter was first mooted in a barely noticed tweet two days ago by a man named Iacopo Scaramuzzi, who has been described on Twitter as a Vaticanista, or Vatican expert.”
Pope Francis once described the internet as a “gift from God”.
And so it must seem for President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kim Kardashian and all who know how to conquer it for publicity.
Google’s rule over the Internet is unquestionable and bestows full power on Eric Schmidt whose company Alphabet now makes the boast it will someday soon replace the human brain with Artificial Intelligence.
No doubt that the Creator will never see the replacement of His Creation of Man by Artificial Intelligence as a “Gift from God”.
Francis was the first pope to take his message regularly to Twitter, and the @pontifex account, first opened by Pope Benedict, now has 8.4 million followers. He’s hosted two Google Hangouts live from the Vatican. (Guardian)
Though the Pontiff has admitted to not having a computer, he is clearly no stranger to the power of technology, which is what he used when he sent out his Epiphany message that all religions are the same.
The same power was not in force for traditional Catholic author, columnist and speaker Louie Verricchio when Vimeo removed a video he posted challenging Pope Francis’s ‘all-religions-are-the-same message to the world.
“I suspect that many if not most of you have already viewed the latest affront to Our Blessed Lord from Pope Francis—a wretched video produced by a Jesuit organization called Pope World Prayer Network—Apostleship of Prayer (as if these people bear any resemblance to the Apostles!) entitled, “The Pope Video.”
“Just in case you’ve missed it, the original cringe-worthy piece is below, immediately followed by a version that is more properly translated courtesy of yours truly. [SPOILER ALERT: The Great Apostasy has indeed begun.]”
*******

Pope Francis' prayer intentions for January 2016  
Published on Jan 6, 2016
*******
In his lengthy address on technology, Pope Francis once said:
“On the global level we see a scandalous gap between the opulence of the wealthy and the utter destitution of the poor.” “We should not overlook the fact that those who for whatever reason lack access to social media run the risk of being left behind.” (Guardian)
Meanwhile, Louie Verricchio and blogosphere friends likeDavid Domethave proven that the Internet has become more Orwellian than the Pope Francis-described ‘Gift of God’ because just as it is everywhere else in Marxism, some animals are more equal than others.
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com
*******
Pope Francis pleads with nations to act now on climate change
By Michael O'Loughlin
National reporter | September 25, 2015
NEW YORK — Pope Francis brought his campaign for action on climate change to the United Nations Friday, proclaiming the existence of a “right of the environment” and pleading with countries to stop abusing it.
In remarks to the largest gathering of world leaders in UN history — close to 200 prime ministers, presidents, and potentates — the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics blamed environmental degradation on “a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity” that causes untold suffering for the poor who “are cast off by society.”
But the environment was hardly Francis’ only focus: In a wide-ranging speech, he urged action on drug trafficking, armed conflict, terrorism, education, inequality, and corruption — reminding the UN General Assembly that “solemn commitments” without follow-through could ultimately do more harm than good.
Francis is the fourth pope to address the UN (John Paul II visited twice), and he used the opportunity to push his pro-environment message, framing the issue in moral terms and citing his climate change encyclical, Laudato Si’.
He was clear that in his mind, environmental protections include an “absolute respect for life in all its stages and dimensions.”
“First, it must be stated that a true ‘right of the environment’ does exist,” the pope said.
“Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity,” he continued. Human beings, he said, are “not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it.”
He blamed “a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity” for environmental degradation, leading to increased suffering for the poor who “are cast off by society.
He mentioned the international climate summit scheduled for December in Paris, saying he’s confident it will result in an effective plan for combatting climate change.
But he urged leaders not to wait to take steps to end human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of children, slave labor, prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism, and international organized crime.
“We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges,” the pope said.
Francis called on world leaders to guarantee all people access to basic materials and spiritual rights, including access to “lodging, labor, and land,” as he put it, as well as housing, a living wage, adequate food and water, religious freedom, and education.
“These pillars of integral human development have a common foundation, which is the right to life and, more generally, what we could call the right to existence of human nature itself,” he said.
At the beginning of his remarks, the pope cited the UN, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year, for establishing a set of international laws, enforcing human rights, helping to resolve conflicts, and conducting peacekeeping operations.
Despite his praise for accomplishments he called “lights which help to dispel the darkness of the disorder,” the Vatican nonetheless has a complicated relationship with the organization.
The Holy See takes issue with the UN’s insistence that abortion rights and population control measures be adopted in member states — a stance that Francis has repeatedly called “ideological colonization.”
On Friday, Francis again expressed his opposition to such “false rights,” speaking out against the imposition of what he called “anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible,” referring to his opposition to same-sex marriage and “gender theory” — the idea that gender is flexible.
He also reiterated his belief in the complementary roles of men and women — “the natural difference between man and woman” — as well as a respect for life from birth to death, embodied in his opposition to abortion and the death penalty. He referred to both concepts as “moral law written into human nature itself.”
Francis called for greater roles for less powerful nations on the UN Security Council and said international financial agencies should adopt measures that limit “abuse or usury, especially where developing countries are concerned.”
He urged the UN to monitor the financial health of developing nations to shield them from predatory lending practices that “generate greater poverty, exclusion, and dependence.”
The pope devoted much of his speech to issues of war and peace, at one point denouncing the self-described Islamic State, though not mentioning the group by name.
He lamented that Christians and other religious groups, including Muslims, in the Middle East and in Africa have been “forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.”
He called on leaders “to work for a world free of nuclear weapons” and condemned the global drug trade.
“Drug trafficking,” he said, “is by its very nature accompanied by trafficking in persons, money laundering, the arms trade, child exploitation, and other forms of corruption.”
In some nations, he said, corruption has become so widespread and engrained that it’s practically a government in and of itself, threatening legitimate ruling entities.
Throughout his address, delivered in Spanish, Francis sought to put a human face on the many challenges facing world leaders.
He called on them to recognize the sacredness of every human life, including “the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic.”
When it comes to war, the pope said, nations become preoccupied with strategy and disagreements while it is “our brothers and sisters, men and women, young and old, boys and girls who weep, suffer, and die.”
During the pope’s speech, there was a surprise announcement on Capitol Hill: House Speaker John Boehner, who hosted the pope during his address to Congress yesterday, is resigning. Boehner, a Catholic Republican, was clearly moved by the presence of the pope; he wiped away tears during the pope’s speech in the House chamber, and again on the West Front balcony when the pope greeted the crowds gathered outside.
Before his address to the General Assembly, Francis addressed a small group of UN staff who had received tickets to the intimate meeting through a lottery. “Send my greetings to those who couldn’t come, because of the lottery,” Francis said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.
He thanked the workers for their efforts and urged them to “be close to one another, respect one another, and so embody among yourselves this organization’s ideal of a united human family, living in harmony.”
This is the fifth time a pope has spoken at the UN: Paul VI was the first, in 1965, followed by John Paul II in 1979 and 1995, and Benedict XVI in 2008. But Francis is the first pope to address the annual opening session of the body.
The Vatican flag was raised for the first time outside the UN headquarters in honor of Francis’ visit. (The Vatican City-State is an observer nation, not a full member, so its flag does not usually fly outside the building with those of other nations.)
Francis arrived in New York Thursday under intense security, and spoke to priests and members of religious communities at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
After his speech at the UN, the pope is scheduled to take part in an interfaith prayer service at the World Trade Center memorial. Later, he will visit a Catholic school in Harlem, motorcade through Central Park, then celebrate Mass at Madison Square Garden Friday evening.
He departs for Philadelphia Saturday morning for the final leg of his US journey.
*******
Know Your Enemy: Attack of the NGOs
by Tom DeWeese
November 2, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
The UN just wrapped up yet another international meeting attended by thousands of delegates and world leaders. This time they introduced and unanimously approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is the 17 Goal reboot of Agenda 21 with plans to fully enforce it by 2030.
Many people ask me who writes these Agendas and who attends these meetings. And especially people ask how they wield so much power and influence over our government. It’s a vast matrix composed of both private Non-governmental Organizations (NGO) groups and representatives of the UN and representatives of a large number of US federal agencies, all working together behind the scenes, quietly making policy for the rest of us.
They make fun of our efforts to expose and fight Agenda 21, calling it a conspiracy theory. Through their condescending chuckles they boldly claim that Agenda 21 policy has no power of enforcement and that “there are no Blue-helmeted troops at City Hall.” The truth is the UN doesn’t need troops at City Hall because they have a private army doing the job for them, the NGO’s working behind the scenes applying the pressure on elected officials.
One rarely hears of it. Few elected officials raise an eyebrow. The media makes no mention of it. But power is slowly slipping away from our elected representatives. In much the same way Mao Tse Tung had his Red Guards, so the UN has its NGOs. They may well be your masters of tomorrow, and you don’t even know who or what they are.
There are, in fact, two parallel, complimentary forces at work in the world, working together to advance the global Sustainable Development agenda, ultimately leading toward UN global governance. Those two forces are the UN itself and non-governmental organizations (NGOs.)
Beginning with the United Nations, the infrastructure pushing the Sustainable Development agenda is a vast, international matrix. At the top of the heap is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP).
Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all of the international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are the result of UNEP efforts.
But the UNEP doesn’t operate on its own. Influencing it and helping to write policy are thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These are private groups which seek to implement a specific political agenda. Through the UN infrastructure, particularly through the UNEP, they have great power.
The phrase “non-governmental organization” came into use with the establishment of the United Nations Organization in 1945 with provisions in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter. The term describes a consultative role for organizations that are neither government nor member states of the UN.
NGOs are not just any private group hoping to influence policy. True NGOs are officially sanctioned by the United Nations. Such status was created by UN Resolution 1296 in 1948, giving NGOs official “Consultative” status to the UN. That means they can not only sit in on international meetings, but can actively participate in creating policy, right along side government representatives.
There are numerous classifications of NGO’s. The two most common are “Operational” and “Advocacy.” Operational NGOs are involved with designing and implementing specific projects such as feeding the hungry or organizing relief projects. These groups can be religious or secular. They can be community-based, national or international. The International Red Cross falls under the category of an operational NGO.
Advocacy NGOs are promoting a specific political agenda. They lobby government bodies, use the news media and organize activist-oriented events, all designed to raise awareness and apply pressure to promote their causes which include environmental issues, human rights, poverty, education, children, drinking water, and population control - to name a few. Amnesty Internationalis the largest human rights advocacy NGO in the world. Organized globally, it has more than 1.8 million members, supporters and subscribers in over 150 countries.
Today these NGOs have power nearly equal to member nations when it comes to writing U.N. policy. Just as civil service bureaucrats provide the infrastructure for government operation, so to do NGOs provide such infrastructure for the U.N. In fact, most U.N. policy is first debated and then written by the NGOs and presented to national government officials at international meetings for approval and ratification. It is through this process that the individual political agendas of the NGO groups enter the international political arena.
The policies sometimes come in the form of international treaties or simply as policy guidelines. Once the documents are presented to and accepted by representatives of member states and world leaders, obscure political agendas of private organizations suddenly become international policy, and are then adopted as national and local laws by U.N. member states. Through this very system, Sustainable Development has grown from a collection of ideas and wish lists of a wide variety of private organizations to become the most widely implemented tool in the U.N.’s quest for global governance.
The three most powerful organizations influencing UNEP policy are three international NGOs. They are the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUCN). These three groups provide the philosophy, objectives and methodology for the international environmental agenda through a series of official reports and studies such as: World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by all three groups; Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992; and Global Biodiversity Assessment, published in 1996.
These groups not only influence UNEP’s agenda, they also influence a staggering array of international and national NGOs around the world. Jay Hair, former head of the National Wildlife Federation, one of the U.S.’s largest environmental organizations, was also the president of the IUCN. Hair later turned up as co-chairman of the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development.
The WWF maintains a network of national chapters around the world, which influence, if not dominate, NGO activities at the national level. It is at the national level where NGOs agitate and lobby national governments to implement the policies that the IUCN, WWF and WRI get written into the documents that are advanced by the UNEP. In this manner, the world grows ever closer to global governance.
Other than treaties, how does UNEP policy become U.S. policy? Specifically, the IUCN has an incredible mix of U.S. government agencies along with major U.S. NGOs as members. Federal agencies include the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Park Service (NPS) the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Fish and Wildlife service. These agencies send representatives to all meetings of the UNEP.
Also attending those meetings as active members are NGO representatives. These include activist groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, and hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas they desire to become law. Through their official contact with government agencies working side-by-side with the UNEP, their political wish lists become official government policy.
How can this be, you ask? How can private organizations control policy and share equal power to elected officials? Here’s how it works.
When the dust settled over the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, five major documents were forced into international policy that will change forever how national policy is made. More importantly, the Rio Summit produced the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). UNCED outlined a new procedure for shaping policy. The procedure has no name, nor is it dictatorial. It is perhaps best described as “controlled consensus” or “affirmative acquiescence.”
Put in simple street language, the procedure really amounts to a collection of NGOs, bureaucrats and government officials, all working together toward a predetermined outcome. They have met together in meetings, written policy statements based on international agreements, which they helped to create and now they are about to impose laws and regulations that will have dire effects on people’s lives and national economies. Yet, with barely a twinge of conscience they move forward with the policy, saying nothing. No one objects. It’s understood. Everyone goes along. For this is a barbaric procedure that insures their desired outcome without the ugliness of bloodshed, or even debate. It is the procedure used to advance the radical, global environmental agenda.
The UNCED procedure utilizes four elements of power: international government (UN); national governments; non-governmental organizations, and philanthropic institutions.
The NGOs are the key to the process. They create policy ideas from their own private agendas. The policy idea is then adopted by one or more U.N. organizations for consideration at a regional conference. Each conference is preceded by an NGO forum designed specifically to bring NGO activists into the debate. There they are fully briefed on the policy and then trained to prepare papers and lobby and influence the official delegates of the conference. In this way, the NGOs control the debate and assure the policy is adopted.
The ultimate goal of the conference is to produce a “Convention,” which is a legally- drawn policy statement on specific issues. Once the “Convention” is adopted by the delegates, it is sent to the national governments for official ratification. Once that is done, the new policy becomes international law.
Then the real work begins. Compliance must be assured. Again, the NGOs come into the picture. They are responsible for pressuring Congress to write national laws in order to comply with the treaty. One trick used to assure compliance is to write into the laws the concept of third-party lawsuits.
NGOs now regularly sue the government and private citizens to force policy. They have their legal fees and even damage awards paid to them out of the government treasury. Through a coordinated process, hundreds of NGOs are at work in Congress, in every state government and in every local community, advancing some component of the global environmental agenda.
However, the United States Constitution’s Tenth Amendment bars the Federal Government from writing laws that dictate local policy. To by pass this roadblock, NGOs encourage Congress to include special grants to help states and communities to fund the new policy, should they want to “voluntarily” comply.
Should a community or state refuse to participate“voluntarily,” local chapters of the NGOs are trained to go into action. They begin to pressure city councils or county commissioners to accept the grants and implement the policy. Should they meet resistance, they begin to issue news releases telling the community their elected officials are losing millions of dollars for the community. The pressure continues until the grant is finally taken and the policy becomes local law. This practice has resulted in the NGOs gaining incredible power on the local level.
Today, a great number of communities are actually run by NGO members as city and county governments are staffed by NGO members. They are routinely appointed to serve on local unelected boards and regional councils that the NGOs helped to create. In that way, local representative government is slowly relinquishing its power to the NGOs.
Americans must begin to understand that the debate over environmental issues have very little to do with clean water and air or community planning, and much more to do with the establishment of power. NGOs are gaining it as locally-elected representatives are losing their rightful position to influence and guide policy on behalf of the citizens of their community who elected them. Through the creation of the non-elected boards, councils and regional governments, fueled by the federal grants, the structure of American government is being systematically changed to a top-down, non-elected dictatorship controlled by the UN-sanctioned NGOs.
© 2015 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report
For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911
*******
Queen Gives Marching Orders to the United Nations
By Joan Veon
July 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
Hail Caesar!
Regarding the queens speech to the United Nations, we were told by the British Mission to the United Nations that the queen “Will be taking a global perspective. She will touch on progress made since she was last here and challenges that remain.”
For a woman who says she is not head of any country—only titular head of state of 16 countries including Australia, Canada and New Zealand and the nominal representative of 54 governments in the British Commonwealth, who is fooling who? Why should the people of the world listen to a little old lady from Britain? The answer is because her hereditary demands it.
The visit by the queen, which was billed as low key—a five hour visit—was designed to get the global agenda of sustainable development and climate control back on track and to make a statement. Nothing the queen does is low key as every visit, and every word has a meaning and a goal for total control.
First let’s take a look at the queen herself. According to Who Owns the World by Kevin Cahill, the queen is the legal owner of 6,600 million acres of land that equals one sixth of the earth’s non-ocean surface. She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies—like Norway, Belgium, and Denmark, where no such claim is made. The value of her holdings is approximately $33T, more than the estimated value of all of the earth’s natural resources which is estimated to be $25T.
Secondly, the physical structure of the United Nations and its agenda represents the completion of the dream and aspirations of British aristocrat Cecil Rhodes to return the United States and the rest of the world back under British rule. He felt that “too little of the globe was British territory…and if we had retained America…there would be millions more of English living.”
In Rhodes' 1877 will, it says
“…the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed Members of the Empire,” which may well ultimately be achieved, by the Roundtable which “publicized the idea of and the name ‘British Commonwealth of Nations.’”
The executors of Rhodes’ six wills had concerns and fears about what kind of structure all of this should take. According to Dr. Carroll Quigley in his The Anglo-American Establishment published in 1981, they concluded that they would have to transform the British Empire into “a Commonwealth of Nations and then place that system within a League of Nations.” The United Nations is the successor to the League of Nations and the Commonwealth is inside the U.N. In other words, we are there. The representatives to the UN should have greeted her, “Hail Caesar!
It should be noted that from 1946-1989 the British Empire gave “independence” to many of their former colonies. How they did this was to allow them to have their own parliament with representative government and their own prime minister. Lest you think they can do as they please, the queen has her own appointed representative called the Director-General that reports to her everything going on in the country and who reads her instructions after the prime minister provides his report at the opening of their parliament.
As each country obtained independence, they also got a vote at the United Nations. Today the Commonwealth has the potential of 54 votes to America’s one vote. You will find if you look at the number of Commonwealth countries that are members of the other UN agencies like the IMF, World Bank, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, etc., the U.S. is outvoted.
In three separate interviews with representatives from three Commonwealth nations in 2002, I was told by each of them who looked at me with fear and terror when I challenged them to leave the Commonwealth that they could not. In fact the queen made reference to the Commonwealth,
Since I addressed you last, the Commonwealth, too, has grown vigorously to become a group of nations representing nearly two billion people. Last November, when I opened the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, I told the delegates that the Commonwealth had the opportunity to lead. Today I offer you the same message.
Do you now see the meaning of the words and how she used words? The queen also made mention to the Millennium Development Goals. The bottom line, these wonderful socialistic humanitarian goals where the rich countries of the world will give a primary education to every child in the world, reduce poverty and starvation, HIV/Aids, and give $50 to every slum dweller to improve their lives will cost the rich between $40-$60B a year according to the United Nations. This money is to come from an assessment on every country’s Gross Domestic Product called “ODA” to the tune of .07%. In fact, you could call it a global tax. For as long as I have been covering global meetings, this has been a request by the United Nations, now it is a request by the queen. Does anyone know who will get these monies? No. However, it just so happens that the following ten countries which are “Highly Indebted Poor Countries” are members of the Commonwealth: Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Malawi, Mozambique, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Zambia. Do you see what I see? The civilized word is “transfer of wealth.”
That brings us to the environment, Agenda 21, sustainable development, and climate change. While the first pre-United Nations Conference on population was held in 1927 with the assistance of the League of Nations, it was not until 1972 that the United Nations held its own environmental conference in Stockholm. Eleven years before in 1961, Prince Philip the queen’s husband and Prince Bernard of the Netherlands started the World Wildlife Fund, considered one of the oldest and largest environmental groups in the world. World Wildlife Fund is responsible for the publication of many studies and reports on how to save the environment. These documents have been used to support and implement Agenda 21.
In 1972 the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth which said the world could not sustain the population and that something would have to be done. Since the dictates of Agenda 21 are based on Limits to Growth assumptions, in a 2006 interview with Maurice Strong who chaired the 1972 and 1992 earth summits, I asked him if in looking back the assumptions and computer models that were used for that report were wrong, given today’s data, and he admitted that they should be revised. The bottom line is that most of the environmentalism and ideas for environmentalism are being birthed in England.
It was a British scientist, James Lovelock, who formulated the “Gaia Hypothesis” that the earth is a living organism and that it must be protected from you and me. Prince Charles has been involved in environmentalism since 1970 and is responsible for helping to get Agenda 21 to be approved by 25,000 conference participants and delegates at the 1992 UNCED conference through his Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum. When you study Agenda 21, it basically is a return of the earth to feudalism. The idea being that you and I cannot protect the earth’s resources so the United Nation’s has to do it moves the $25T value of earth’s natural resources into the balance sheets of the Queen. The cost to implement climate change is estimated to be between $80-$100B a year. British Petroleum which is largely owned by the queen could make up their current oil spill expenses very quickly if the U.S. government is stupid enough to pass “cap and trade.”
Lastly, several years ago I raised the question, “Does the Queen of Canada” become the “Queen of America” through the North American Free Trade Agreement? It appears to be so according to my research. Although Cecil Rhodes talked about “world peace”, I believe what the queen is talking about is the WHOLE PIECE.
The operation we are discussing here has been 133 years in operation with many actors contributing to its establishment. They include many British and American industrialists and bankers such as the Rockefeller’s, Vanderbilt’s, the Whitney’s, the Morgan’s and Schiff’s. It includes those that are members of the Royal Institute for International Affairs and America’s counterpart: the Council on Foreign Relations, it includes the International Chamber of Commerce, the World Economic Forum, and many other global organizations and NGO’s.
For those who still don’t understand what happened at the United Nations on July 6, 2010 is that the conquering ruler of the world came and delivered a sharp admonition to the representatives that it is time to act. She ended her speech with,
In my lifetime, the United Nations has moved from being a high-minded aspiration to being a real force for the common good. In tomorrow’s world, we must all work together as hard as ever if we are truly to be United Nations.
Do you want to be the United Nations or do you want to be the United States of America?
© 2010 Joan Veon - All Rights Reserved
Order Joan Veon's book; "The United Nations' Global Straitjacket"
Joan Veon is a businesswoman and international reporter, who has covered over 100 Global meetings around the world since 1994. Please visit her website: www.womensgroup.org. To get a copy of her WTO report, send $10.00 to The Women's International Media Group, Inc. P. O. Box 77, Middletown, MD 21769. For an information packet, please call 301-371-0541
*******
Agenda 21 - The main aim of Agenda 21 is to control the world, not just the United States, and “reduce” human population, and have total world control through all countries giving away their control to the United Nations. It is a extended part of the master plan originally designed by Adolf Hitler for a United Europe and taken and expanded upon by the elite for the new world order. You will have no rights, no control, no freedom. Your internet and life will be under constant watch. Food production, seeds and the growing of any food, will be controlled by Monsanto, via the UN.
THE GOVT AND POLICE AND ANY AGENCY WILL HAVE COMPLETE ACCESS TO ALL YOU PERSONAL INFORMATION
The rolling out of smart meters and cheap android phones are a classic example of this. Android phones are the next best thing to a chip implant, allowing complete access to all your personal information. This can be avoided using an android phone but its not easy, while smart meters allow the gov't to tell what appliance you have, what time you eat, sleep, shower & SHIT! Sorry to be so blunt but do you want the truth? In the united kindom, smart meters are not yet compulsory and can be avoided.
Remember, to do your research and find out your rights and use them while you still have them. They are getting in short supply! Agenda 21 is real and has a official linkhttps://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
*******

Rothschild Conspiracy Documentary
Published on Feb 9, 2014
In this Rothschild conspiracy documentary you will discover the truth behind the conspiracy surrounding the Rothschild's banking family and their wealth. "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Rothschild
*******

Who Cares About the Homeless?

$
0
0

*******
*******
The Chronically Homeless Americans
Why must we relegate the homeless, the unemployed, and the poor to ePodments, to tiny homes, to mini-homes, to dwellings made of junkyard scrap and other cheap materials, to dwellings the size of closets?
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives 
January 18, 2016
The mark of a civilized society is how well the most helpless are treated—animals, children, the elderly, and those who are homeless. There is always room for improvement. We are plenty generous with people from other countries, but we miss the mark when it comes to helping our own chronic homeless, the veterans, babies in the womb, the elderly, and others who cannot protect themselves.
It is in plain view that we have failed the homeless. We all pass by people who look healthy, able-bodied, and well-fed, asking for help on a street corner, professional panhandlers who have a nice car and a home to go to – they make a living panhandling.  But then there are those sleeping in the streets, in the cold, in the rain, too dirty and too exhausted to beg; they’ve become so invisible and ignored, nobody speaks to them anymore.
 
How did they get this way? Homeless people live in unimaginable places. How can a society as rich as ours allow this to happen? Why do we care about the downtrodden of the world but not our own citizens?
The Department of Housing and Human Development (HUD) told us in 2014 that there were 84,000 chronically homeless, down from 120,000 in 2007 thanks to a 2002 program aimed at ending chronic homelessness in ten years. As any government program, the goal failed and the program was extended through 2017. HUD used the Homeless Assistance Grants, the Veterans Affairs Supported Housing Program and other demonstration programs to achieve this goal.
The government had decided to end chronic homelessness because it cost the taxpayers too much money to care for individuals who “use many expensive services often paid through public sources, including emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, and law enforcement and jail time.” Citing the fact that putting the homeless in shelters is also costly, bureaucrats admit that there are also ethical reasons to help our fellow man and end chronic homelessness.
The previous model did not work so a new strategy was deployed – “allowing chronically homeless individuals to move into permanent supportive housing without preconditions. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is not time-limited and makes services available to residents.”
One such PSH is Housing First, supported by both HUD and the Department of Veteran Affairs, chosen because the homeless people can select the type and “intensity of services and does not require abstinence or medication compliance.”
PSH increases days spent in housing and reduces days spent homeless. “The outcomes in other areas are not as clear.” In other words, they either don’t know or are not saying if costs are reduced in use and service, if substance use and abuse are diminished, and if mental health improvements are present.
Medicaid funds are used for housing-related services; lobbyists and housing advocates prefer that states use “their own shares of Medicaid funds to finance permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals” since funding through HUD programs is limited for new units. Another source of funding could be Pay for Success Initiatives; private investment in PSH would be paid back if “certain outcomes are attained.”
The term “chronic homelessness” has been used in research since the 1980s, referring to people who have spent more than a year in the streets while suffering from one or two disabling conditions, substance abuse and/or mental illness.
Randall Kuhn and Dennis Culhane categorized homelessness in three groups of people:
•Transitional (short periods of time in shelters who do not return)
•Episodic (more frequent users of shelters, not exceeding a few months)
•Chronic (stay in shelters for long periods of time)*
According to Libby Perl and Erin Bagalman, the federal standards to be deemed chronically homeless are as follows:
•Individuals and families can be chronically homeless even though in the Hearth Act only unaccompanied individuals were included in the definition
•One unaccompanied individual or adult head of household must have a disabling condition such as “substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-occurrence or two or more of those conditions”
•Duration requirement (contiuously homeless for a year or more or at least four occasions in the past three years)
•Where someone sleeps (a place that is not meant for human habitation such as a park, street, abandoned building, sewer, emergency shelter, or safe haven)**
In 2015 HUD reported the total number of homeless individuals to be 564,708. Mental illness and substance use disorders (drugs and alcohol) seemed to be prevalent among the homeless.
The permanent supportive housing (PSH) is not time-limited and services are available to residents. HUD provides much of the funding and thus requires certain criteria such as basing it in a community, not an institution; time of stay cannot be limited; residents can have a renewable lease; and helping residents with disability to live independently.
PSH may rent units in a condominium or apartment complex; subsidies are provided through housing vouchers; single-site multi-family rental property with affordable housing designation; residents pay 30% of their income towards rent and the rest is subsidized. Such units exist around the D.C. area. Some of the units are reported by the other residents as sources of bed bugs infestation and other pests.
Not all PSH providers require their residents in permanent housing to “abstain from drugs and alcohol” in order to remain eligible for housing. Housing First, developed in New York in 1990s under the name Pathways to Housing, does not require residents to abstain from drugs and alcohol or to take their meds, but services are available 24 hours a day to help them if they ask – nurses, caseworkers, and psychiatrists.
Prince William County in Virginia is considering placing its 409 homeless people in 8X12 tiny prototype homes at a cost of $3,000 per unit.  Woodbridge HUGS, a non-profit formed last year to “assist the county’s homeless population” and to provide the homeless with essential goods and housing, said through its representative, “We found what we want as our prototype… we want to put in a composting toilet, a skylight, a generator, a door that locks, [and] windows for cross-ventilation.”
I cannot imagine what these tiny slum units would do to the surrounding landscape and the property values of the adjacent properties. Is this the best way to help the homeless in one of the richest counties in the nation?
Instead of sheltering the homeless in proper and stable housing, why are we moving them essentially into shanty areas? Why must we relegate the homeless, the unemployed, and the poor to ePodments, to tiny homes, to mini-homes, to dwellings made of junkyard scrap and other cheap materials, to dwellings the size of closets?
Are we doing this because the economy is in such in dire straights thanks to this administration’s disastrous economic policies? Or is there another reprehensible Agenda and plan in place to crowd people into stack-and-pack tiny apartments and temporary units the size of a dog house in order to return the suburbia to its original wilderness?
In spite of HUD Homeless Assistance Grants, as a primary tool of the federal government of funding housing for homeless people, HUD-VA Supported Housing program, which was started in 1992, and other social programs, homelessness is far from being addressed properly and will continue to exist.
*Randall Kuhn and Dennis P. Culhane, “Applying Cluster Analysis to Test a Typology of Homelessness by Pattern of Shelter Utilization: Results from the Analysis of Administrative Data,” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 26, no. 2 (April 1998), pp. 207-232.
 **CRS Report 44302, December 8, 2015, pp. 3-4.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.
Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com
*******
*******
A homeless person can expect to die 30 years earlier than an average person, shocking new study reveals
By Gavin Allen
21 December 2011
Homeless people can expect to die 30 years before the average person, research has found.
A study showed that homeless men are dying at an average of 47 years and homeless women at 43, in stark contrast to the average age of death for the general population, 77 years.
The research, carried out by Sheffield University on behalf of homelessness charity Crisis, found that drug and alcohol abuse counts for just over a third of all deaths among homeless people.
Suicide is also nine times more likely among people living rough than the general population.
Meanwhile it found that deaths as a result of traffic accidents are three times as likely, infections twice as likely and falls are more than three times as likely to result in death.
The study, Homelessness: A silent killer, showed that as expected, the causes of death for homeless people differ from those of the wider population, where disease is the biggest killer.
The links between drug and alcohol abuse and homelessness are well established and drugs and alcohol are known to be both a cause and consequence of living on the streets, it said.
Previous research has found that four out of five people start using at least one new drug after becoming homeless.
Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, said: 'It is shocking, but not surprising, that homeless people are dying much younger than the general population.
'Life on the streets is harsh and the stress of being homeless is clearly taking its toll.
'This report paints a bleak picture of the consequences homelessness has on people’s health and wellbeing.
'Ultimately, it shows that homelessness is killing people.'
The research by Dr Bethan Thomas at the University of Sheffield estimates the average age of death not just for rough sleepers, but for the wider homeless population including those who reside in night shelters, homeless hostels and use day centres.
Dr Thomas said: 'The size of the gap in average age of death between homeless people and the general population is shocking.
'It is appalling that in 21st century England people are dying in early middle age because they do not have a home.'
Seyi Obakin, chief executive of youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, said: 'This research highlights why the 80,000 young people a year who suffer homelessness need help now.
'In these increasingly tough times for young people the Government and local councils must not lose sight of the need to support homeless young people.
'By dealing effectively with the health, housing and educational problems of homeless young people first time round they can live successful lives and fulfil their potential.'
A Department of Health spokesman said: 'We know that many homeless people have acute and often multiple health needs. That is why we have established the Inclusion Health programme, which focuses on improving access to healthcare, and the results it achieves, for vulnerable groups such as rough sleepers.
'The National Inclusion Health Board is working closely with Ministers, charities, the NHS, and other experts in the causes of homelessness, to ensure that we do better in the future addressing the health needs of homeless people - for example making sure that nobody is discharged from hospital without a bed to sleep in that night.'
Housing Minister Grant Shapps added: 'The plight of homeless people should be on our minds all year round - not just at Christmas.
'We’re fortunate to have some of the toughest laws in the world to prevent people from ending up on our streets and while homelessness remains lower than in 28 of the last 30 years I’m always anxious to do more.
'That’s why today I’m announcing £20 million of new funding which for the first time will specifically help single homeless people, who all too often slip through the safety net.
'This money will be used to help prevent homelessness at an earlier stage.'
*******
Also See:
World Poverty Won't Disappear Soon!
15 September 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/09/world-poverty-wont-disappear-soon.html
and
Food Shortage, Then Anarchy!
25 July 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/07/food-shortage-then-anarchy.html
and
Disasters Happen! Be Prepared!
(Part 1)
31 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/disasters-happen-be-prepared.html
and
(Part 2)
30 August 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/08/disasters-happen-be-prepared-part-2.html
and
The Collapse of the Entire World’s Economic System has Begun!
18 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-collapse-of-entire-worlds-economic.html
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
(Part 2)
28 September 2013
and
Are We Facing a Global Financial Crisis?
31 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/are-we-facing-global-financial-crisis.html
and
Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse!
(Part 1)

31 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse.html
and
(Part 2)
20 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 3)
25 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 4)
17 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 5)
23 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 6)
23 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 7)
30 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/xxxx.html
and
(Part 8)
23 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/debt-dynamite-dominoes-coming-financial.html
and
(Part 9)
28 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 10)
13 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 11)
29 April 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 12)
28 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 13)
04 April 2012
(Part 15)
02 November 2012
and
Recession? ... Depression? ... What is Going On?
and
The Poor - Prosperity Creates Poverty! 
(Part 1) 
and
(Part 2)
13 November 2013
and
How Do We Eradicate Poverty?
27 November 2012
*******


Is Martial Law Coming In 2016?

$
0
0

*******

FOX NEWS: Obama signs Executive Order for possible MARTIAL LAW in MARCH 2016
Published on Sep 7, 2015
*******

Martial Law? Obama Confiscates National Guard Helicopters from All 50 States
Published on May 11, 2015
www.undergroundworldnews.com
As if the Obama administration’s purchase of more than 2 billion rounds of ammunition, and nearly 3,000 urban tanks, along with their unprecedented (and highly illegal) domestic spying program was not enough to convince you that the federal government is about to suspend the Constitution once and for all, the man who once vowed to run “the most transparent administration in history” has just rather inexplicably, ordered the U.S. Army to seize every Apache attack helicopter currently in use by the National Guard
In all, the Defense Department will confiscate 192 Apaches from National Guard units around the country and give them to the active duty Army.
In exchange for the heavily armed and highly maneuverable choppers, Guard units will receive 111 UH-60 Blackhawk transport helicopters from the Army Defense One, reports.
Last week, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the measure will save taxpayers $12 billion, over the next three years.
*******

MARTIAL LAW, NWO, FEMA detention camps EVIL PLANS FOR YOU AND ME  
Published on Oct 15, 2013
Martial Law and NWO are not just from some conspiracy person, they are very real agendas from the elite. Have you noticed the complete Police State we are under? You can hardly tell the difference between the local police and the military now. Divide and conquer, total take over, and then they will try and throw us in their "Internment Center" aka FEMA camps. Truth Channel covers in depth these topics in this 45 min video.
*******
What Would Happen If Martial Law Was Declared In America?
Well, the first thing that you need to know is that the U.S. Constitution would be “suspended”
Michael Snyder | End Of The American Dream
April 2, 2015
In recent weeks, there has been a lot of concern that an upcoming eight week military exercise on U.S. soil known as “Jade Helm” is actually a dress rehearsal for the imposition of martial law in this country.
One of the reasons for the high level of concern is that we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of “urban warfare exercises” conducted by the U.S. military in major U.S. cities over the past decade – including exercises where “dissidents” are hunted down, arrested and hauled away.  As our world becomes increasingly unstable, and as our society rapidly decays from within, many believe that it is only a matter of time before the executive branch will have sufficient excuse to use the extensive martial law powers that it has been accumulating since 9/11.  When that day arrives, what will our nation look like?  What would actually happen if martial law was declared in America?
Well, the first thing that you need to know is that the U.S. Constitution would be “suspended”.
In other words, you would suddenly have no rights at all.
There would be no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly and you could be arrested at any time for any reason whatsoever.
For the duration of the “emergency”, the military would be in control.  There would be troops in the streets, a curfew would almost certainly be imposed, and armed checkpoints would be set up.
If the “emergency” lasted long enough, we would probably see authorities go house to house confiscating firearms, ammunition and food supplies.
And perhaps most troubling of all, “dissidents” and “subversives” would likely be rounded up and imprisoned.
Perhaps you don’t think that this could ever happen in the United States in 2015.
Well, we do know that this is precisely what the FBI had a plan to do in the 1950s.  The following is an excerpt from a recent RT article…
Documents show the FBI created a “Plan C” during the Cold War, which could have been triggered in the event the US underwent a nuclear attack. It included putting the nation under martial law, rounding up “subversives,” and interning enemy diplomats.
The documents, acquired by transparency journalism organization MuckRock,
detail the FBI plan created in 1956, which was shared with several top officials from every governmental department. The FBI also distributed papers regarding the plan to its field offices. The plan would have gone into effect “after a war has begun in which the US is involved or may become involved and prior to an actual attack on the US itself,” according to the documents.
Under Plan C, martial law would be declared and the FBI would enact its ‘Emergency Detention Program,’ which entailed apprehending individuals whose affiliations with subversive organizations “are so pronounced that their continued liberty in the event of a national emergency would present a serious threat to the internal security of the country.” The document shows that as of April 1956, almost 13,000 people “were scheduled for apprehension in an emergency.”
Very sobering.
And we do know that the federal government had a list of at least 8 million names of people that were considered to be “threats to national security” back in the 1980s.  This list was known as Main Core, and it is not known whether this list still exists today.
I have a feeling that it does, and that it is probably much larger than it was back then.
We also know that government documents produced during the Obama
administration openly discuss rounding up “dissidents” and taking them to internment camps.  Just consider the following example from Infowars…
A leaked 2012 US Army Military Police training manual, entitled “Civil Disturbance Operations,” described how soldiers would be ordered to confiscate firearms and kill American “dissidents.” The manual also revealed that prisoners would be detained in temporary internment camps and “re-educated” to gain a new appreciation of “U.S. policies,” in accordance with U.S. Army FM 3-19.40 Internment/Resettlement Operations.
So who would those “dissidents” be exactly?
In “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“, I detailed how official U.S. government documents specifically identify those that believe in “conspiracy theories” as possible threats.  Others that the government is concerned about include those opposed to abortion, globalism, communism, illegal immigration, the United Nations and “the New World Order”.
I wish that none of this was true.  Go check out the article for yourself.
Another very disturbing government document talks about the need for the U.S. Army to prepare to battle political dissidents in “megacities” and to neutralize groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state”.  Here is more from Infowars…
The U.S. Army is preparing to fight political dissidents who challenge the power of the state as “megacities” become the battleground of the future, according to a new report in the Army Times.
The article details how the Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) worked with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence earlier this year to wargame the future of armed combat, which will revolve around the neutralization of groups “who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state,” a chillingly vague description which could easily be applied to political dissidents.
The plan foresees an unprecedented realignment of U.S. military strategy focused around putting “boots on the ground” in megacities to deal with “politically dispossessed” populations while relying on “more lethal and more autonomous” methods.
Very alarming stuff.
And if we did see martial law declared nationwide, it is likely that all elections would be suspended indefinitely.
That could also potentially include the 2016 presidential election.
Is it possible that Barack Obama could use his emergency powers to stay in the White House beyond his second term?  There are some out there that believe that this could actually happen under the right circumstances.  For example, check out what Dr. Ben Carson said during an appearance on the Alan Colmes radio show…
COLMES: What do you mean though when you say there may not be an election in 2016?
DR. BEN CARSON: There may be so much anarchy going on.
COLMES: Anarchy? So you really think we risk risking an anarchic America to the point where elections might be put on hold, or some kind of emergency is declared with such anarchy that there wouldn’t be a Presidential election in a couple of years?
DR. BEN CARSON: I don’t want to find out. I really don’t want to find out, I don’t want to continue down this pathway that we’re going down.
And the groundwork has certainly been laid for such a scenario.
During his time in the White House, Barack Obama has signed a series of executive orders that give him and his minions an extraordinary amount of power in the event of a major national emergency.
For example, read the following excerpt from an executive order that Obama signed in March 2012…
Sec. 201.  Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
That sounds like it covers just about everything.
Basically, during a time of martial law all of the things that you take for granted today would be out the window.
You would have no rights, and the federal government would be able to do just about anything that it wanted to do.
If that sounds really bad to you, then maybe now you are starting to understand why so many people get upset when they see preparations being made for the eventual imposition of martial law in this country.
*******

ANONYMOUS - FEMA and Martial Law
Published on Apr 22, 2015
We have come together a massive project to present to you guys and you may be blown away how much crap we are facing in the near future and it may surprise you.
Notice: You will notice that some clips are misplaced in the video, however it is still worth to watch if you wish.
*******

Do You Eat GMO Foods?

$
0
0

*******

Corrupt US Politicians - US Citizens Eating GMOs in Ignorance - Huge Cancer Risks  
Published on May 17, 2013
*******
GMO Cookie Is Crumbling
By Dr. Mercola
November 03, 2015
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is the research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), determined glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, to be a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A).
This determination was based on evidence showing the popular weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.
Monsanto has maintained that the classification as a carcinogen is wrong and continues to tout glyphosate (and Roundup) as one of the safest pesticides on the planet.1
However, they’ve now been slapped with a growing number of lawsuits alleging they long knew that Roundup’s glyphosate could harm human health. Reuters reported:
“Monsanto ‘led a prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers, and the general population that Roundup was safe,’ the lawsuit states.
… ‘We can prove that Monsanto knew about the dangers of glyphosate,’ said Michael McDivitt, whose Colorado-based law firm is putting together cases for 50 individuals. ‘There are a lot of studies showing glyphosate causes these cancers.’”
In fact, internal Monsanto documents reveal they knew over 30 years ago that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats they studied – and that’s only the beginning of Monsanto’s trouble. As each day goes by, the GMO (genetically modified organism) cookie continues to crumble…
Monsanto Asks California to Withdraw Glyphosate on Its Carcinogen List
California environmental officials intend to add glyphosate to their Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing chemicals. Established in California in 1986, Proposition 65 requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.
Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California.
Monsanto, however, is trying a different strategy. They filed formal comments with the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn.
Their reasoning was that California’s actions could be considered illegal because, Monsanto claimed, they were no considering valid scientific evidence.2
The comment was slipped in on the final day the state accepted public comments, perhaps because Monsanto was trying not to attract too much fanfare to their attempts to keep people in the dark about their carcinogenic product.
It wouldn’t be the first time, either. Not only has the company been steadfastly fighting againstGMO labeling, but they also feigned ignorance on the dangers of PCBs for several decades, which turned out to be a bold-faced lie. 
Monsanto (and Monsanto-related entities) is now facing at least 700 lawsuits on behalf of people who claim their exposure to PCBs, which Monsanto manufactured until the 1970s, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.3
Monsanto Employees Urged to Seek Legal Counsel Regarding Their Financial Rights…
Among the lawsuits filed against Monsanto are those from former farm workers who maintain their cancers (non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bone cancer, and others) were caused by glyphosate exposure. It’s also alleged that Monsanto engaged in false advertising that Roundup affects enzymes in plants but not in people.4
Aside from farm workers who may have suffered from years of glyphosate usage, another group of Monsanto’s victims may be their own employees.
Monsanto is being investigated for possible violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974 (ERISA) regarding their Monsanto Savings and Investment Plan. As reported by Business Wire:5
“ERISA imposes fiduciary duties to prudently manage and invest the assets of the Plan. These duties were potentially violated by Monsanto’s continued offering of its company stock while it allegedly knew that the stock price was artificially inflated.
… According to employee stock fraud attorney, Jake Zamansky, Monsanto’s existing and former employees who purchased company stock through the Savings and Investment Plan may have suffered damage to their retirement savings.
If the lawsuit allegations that Monsanto knew the risks of Roundup pesticides prove true, Zamansky states, then the Company knew that its stock price was artificially inflated and that it would correct when the truth came out.
Monsanto’s existing and former employees who bought or held company stock that was artificially inflated were likely damaged, he states.”
Senate Hearing on GMO Labeling Deemed a ‘Travesty’
HR 1599, incorrectly named "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” introduced by Rep. Pompeo with guidance from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), was passed by the US House of Representatives in July 2015.
The bill is commonly referred to as the "Deny Americans the Right to Know," or DARK, Act, as it extends unprecedented protection to Monsanto and other biotechnology companies while decimating state and consumer rights.
In addition to barring states from creating their own food labeling requirements for GMOs, HR 1599 preempts any and all state and local regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops – increasing corporate control of our food systems.
Adding insult to injury, HR 1599 will allow GMOs to be labeled as "natural" while forcing the burden of cost to conventional food providers, requiring a federal certification to be labeled as non-GMO.
HR 1599 slipped through the House greased with lots of GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association, aka Junk Food Industry) and biotech money and then headed into the Senate in October 2015.
Unfortunately, instead of hearing testimonies from parties on both sides of the issue, the hearing was reportedly stacked with pro-GMO witnesses from the biotech and food industries.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), which was not invited to testify, called the Senate hearing a “travesty” and noted that of the eight witnesses allowed to testify, only one could be remotely considered as someone who represented the interests of consumers and public health.
The other seven had ties to biotech and corporate food industries and were there to represent the interests of the corporations, not people.6 According to OCA, this included:7
•Michael Gregoire, associate administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA): Gregoire helped Monsanto by cutting in half the time it takes for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to rubber-stamp a new GMO crop.
•William Jordan, deputy director, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Jordan oversaw the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reaction to the infamous StarLink GMO contamination scandal in 2000.
The StarLink corn variety, engineered to produce a Bt toxin, was supposed to be limited to animal feed and industrial use, out of fear it might cause severe allergic reactions. But it turned up in taco shells, and people started getting sick. Jordan refused to punish StarLink producer Aventis with even so much as a fine.
•Joanna Lidback, producer, The Farm at Wheeler Mountain, Barton, Vt.: Lidback is a graduate of the American Farm Bureau’s Monsanto-funded Partners in Agricultural Leadership program. Lidback has an MBA and works full-time as a business consultant to Yankee Farm Credit. She is the first vice president of the Orleans County Farm Bureau.
She’s on the board of directors of the Truth About Trade & Technology. Lidback also represents Agri-Mark, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and the National Milk Producers Federation, as a dairy farmer producing milk for Cabot Cheese.
Vermont’s GMO labeling law won’t impact Lidback’s farm because it doesn’t cover the products of animals fed genetically engineered feed, but Lidback falsely claimed that the law could put her farm out of business.
•Daryl E. Thomas, senior vice president, Herr Foods, Inc., Nottingham, Pa.: Herr Foods represents the typical food company that wants to make money from the market for non-GMO foods, while keeping consumers in the dark about which foods contain GMO ingredients.
On Herr’s website, the company explains its twisted position this way: “We know that food safety is paramount to everyone. So while we continue to explore opportunities to offer the latest developments in non-GMO ingredients, we remain committed to delivering to you the safest and best tasting snacks possible.”
Herr’s recently began marketing a non-GMO popcorn called Go-Lite! Herr’s has been lobbying against mandatory GMO labels with the Snack Food Association.
•Ronald E. Kleinman, physician in chief, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Boston, Mass.: Kleinman… worked for the GMO junk food industry during the Prop 37 campaign to label GMOs in California. Kleinman presents webinars on children’s health, for Coca-Cola, among the “most common misperceptions among parents”
Dr. Kleinman promises to clear up on behalf of the soda giant are “the safety… of sugar, artificial colors, and non-nutritive sweeteners in children’s diets.”
His bio on the Massachusetts General Hospital webpage says he consults for the Grain Food Foundation, Beech Nut, Burger King, and General Mills… and he contributed to a children’s brochure entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.
Kevin Folta: Bizarre Conflict of Interest Scandal Revealed
University of Florida professor Kevin Folta, a vocal advocate for GMOs, has vehemently denied ever receiving any money from Monsanto, but was caught having been less than forthright about his connections to the company when his email correspondence was released in response to a freedom of information (FOIA) request by US Right to Know. In August of last year, Folta did in fact receive a $25,000 unrestricted grant from Monsanto, and Folta wrote back to a Monsanto executive saying: "I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment."
However, despite a rare flurry of media attention, none of the mainstream media outlets have addressed the most flagrant piece of evidence against Folta, showing that not only did he solicit these funds from Monsanto, he appeared to do so with intent to hide the financial connection between them. Folta even went so far as to create a bizarre alter ego, Vern Blazek, a supposed radio personality in Tillamook, Oregon, who held podcasts to sort through “the shills and charlatans to distill the scientific truth.”
Blazek hosted an interview with none other than Kevin Folta in June 2015, in which they discussed GMOs. As reported by BuzzFeed’s Brooke Borel:8
“Anti-GMO activists, Folta lamented to Blazek, were making misguided attempts to tie independent scientists to the agricultural giant Monsanto, one of the most polarizing companies in America. In July, through a bizarre email exchange, I discovered that Blazek is Folta’s alter ego. It was Folta who put on that disguised voice and interviewed his colleagues. It was Folta who had interviewed himself, without ever telling his audience. Because of our correspondence, Folta shut down the show and killed off Vern. Two weeks after that, a scandal broke that uprooted his life.
That’s when a group called U.S. Right to Know revealed the results of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the emails of Folta and 42 other public university employees whose work in some way relates to food. The group hoped to reveal unsavory ties between scientists and the biotech industry — and particularly to Monsanto. As activists and journalists mined some 4,600 pages of Folta’s emails and other records, they uncovered a nuanced intellectual and financial relationship to the company.
Folta had exchanged friendly emails with Ketchum — a firm that handles public relations for the Council for Biotechnology Information, an industry group of which Monsanto is a member — and collaborated with them on language about GMOs that he posted to an industry-funded website. He had worked with Ketchum on an op-ed for the Orlando Sentinel. And Monsanto had enlisted him to speak to skeptical farmers in Colorado who didn’t want to hear about GMOs directly from the company.”
The New York Times posted a long list of emails between Folta and Monsanto, obtained through the FOIA request. I encourage you to read these emails to see for yourself how Monsanto's PR firms use "independent" scientists to further the industry's version of science.9
Donald Trump Retweets, Then Deletes, Monsanto Slam – Why?
In October 2015, polls revealed that 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson was leading in Iowa. Shortly after, Donald Trump retweeted this message:10 “‘@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP.'”
The retweet was deleted after a few hours and Trump blamed it on a “young intern,” but there was likely a very good reason why the retweet was quickly removed. Trump was trailing in Iowa, which is one of the leading producers of Monsanto’s taxpayer-subsidized corn, which in turn is used to produce ethanol.
According to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, ethanol is a major market for Iowa corn, and 47 percent of Iowa corn goes into ethanol production. There are 42 corn ethanol plants in the state, which produce close to 25 percent of all ethanol production in the US.11 Ethanol is poised to become a central issue in the upcoming election. As reported by Bloomberg earlier this year:12
“… [E]fforts [were made] by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad… to start a grass-roots effort to make ethanol a central issue in the Iowa caucuses next January, traditionally the first vote of the presidential primary season. Earlier this year, Branstad announced the formation of a new group, America’s Renewable Future, which intends to mobilize a pro-ethanol army of 25,000 people from each party to participate in the caucuses.
The group is backed by Growth Energy, the most active ethanol lobby, and headed by Branstad’s son Eric, who was Iowa field director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. He says he plans to open an office in each of Iowa’s 99 counties. ‘We can get our message into the coffee shops where the candidates are,’ Eric says. ‘Then we can use Iowa’s unique status to teach the rest of the country how important ethanol is.’”
The US green energy policy requires oil companies to blend corn ethanol into their gasoline, which has driven up corn prices (until last year) and created an absolutely tragic environmental blunder. The federal government has moved to lower ethanol quotas for oil refiners, but the US EPA increased them anyway earlier this year.13 But the real issue is that plowing up native grasslands to plant vast expanses of corn and soy – the epitome of monoculture – needs to be stopped – not further subsidized by the government.
Such practice releases carbon dioxide into the environment while increasing erosion and the use of toxic fertilizers and other chemicals; it also destroys habitat for native plants and wildlife. Corn crops are already subsidized by the US government, so between subsidies and rising ethanol-driven prices, corn has become quite a cash crop for farmers.
But this "green energy" program is backfiring, because there's nothing "green" about planting an absolutely unnecessary surplus of corn, especially when natural prairies are being sacrificed. Not to mention, ethanol has been found to be worse for engines,14 worse for mileage,15 and more about political agendas than economic or environmental ones.
As Ron Paul said:16
“Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create diesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.”
As further reported by Clean Technica, corn ethanol fuel standards have created more problems than solutions:17
“A ten-year review of the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) by researchers at the University of Tennessee (UT) found that the RFS is ‘too reliant’ on corn ethanol, and the production of this biofuel is resulting in additional water and soil problems, as well as 'hampering advancements' in other biofuels.”
Meanwhile, how can there be talks of a food shortage when the US is using up some of its best soil to grow corn for fuel? Not to mention that, by driving up prices, it may actually contribute to hunger. More than 800 million people around the world don’t have access to enough to eat, and when corn prices rise, it makes it difficult for even more people to feed their families. Nearly half of the corn grown in the US goes toward fuel, while people are starving around the world…
Monsanto’s GM crops are often touted as necessary to ensure global food security, even though studies showreduced crop yields with their use. Feed the world? More like starve the world to protect Monsanto’s fuel subsidy…
What You Need to Know About GMOs
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are live organisms whose genetic components have been artificially manipulated in a laboratory setting through creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and even viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods.
GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry. They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
The FDA cleared the way for GE (Genetically Engineered) Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption. Thanks to added language in the federal spending bill, the product will require special labelling so at least consumers will have the ability to identify the GE salmon in stores. However, it’s imperative ALL GE foods be labeled, which is currently still being denied
The FDA is threatening the existence of our food supply. We have to start taking action now. I urge you to share this article with friends and family. If we act together, we can make a difference and put an end to the absurdity.
QR Codes Are NOT an Adequate Substitute for Package Labels
The biotech industry is trying to push the QR code as an answer for consumer concerns about GE foods. QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR readers.
The code brings you to a product website that provides further details about the product. The video below shows you why this is not an ideal solution. There’s nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs on their website. On the contrary, GE foods are allowed to be promoted as “natural,” which further adds to the confusion.
These so-called "Smart Labels" hardly improve access to information. Instead, by making finding the truth time consuming and cumbersome, food makers can be assured that most Americans will remain ignorant about the presence of GMOs in their products. Besides, everyone has a right to know what's in the food. You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information.
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
If you are searching for non-GMO foods here is a list of trusted sites you can visit.





GM Foods Can Be Toxic or Allergenic
Michael Antoniou, John Fagan and Claire Robinson
In this section the authors looked at results in animal feeding trials. GM crops, including some that are already in our food and animal feed supply, have shown clear signs of toxicity in animal feeding trials- notably disturbances in liver and kidney function and immune responses.
The following briefing is taken from “GMO Myths and Truths” a report compiled by Michael Antoniou, John Fagan and Claire Robinson.
Or summary of this section here.
Key Points
Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter haematological [blood], biochemical, and immunologic parameters, the significance of which remains to be solved with chronic toxicity studies.
Peer-reviewed studies have found harmful effects on the health of laboratory and livestock animals fed GMOs. Effects include toxic and allergenic effects and altered nutritional value.
Most animal feeding studies on GMOs have only been short-term or medium-term in length. What are needed are long-term and multi-generational studies on GMOs to see if the worrying changes commonly reported in short- and medium-term studies develop into serious disease. Such studies are not required by government regulators.
Industry and regulators dismiss findings of harm in animal feeding trials on GMOs by claiming they are “not biologically significant” or “not biologically relevant” – scientifically meaningless terms that have not been properly defined.
No GM nutritionally enhanced (biofortified) foods are available on the market. In contrast, conventional plant breeding has successfully and safely produced many biofortified foods.
The most-hyped GM nutritionally enhanced food, Golden Rice, aimed at combating vitamin A deficiency, has wasted millions in development funds – yet has not been proven safe to eat and is still not ready for the market. Meanwhile, proven and inexpensive solutions to vitamin A deficiency are available and only need proper funding to be more widely applied.
Conventional plant breeding has successfully and safely produced many biofortified foods.
Feeding studies on laboratory and farm animals show that GM foods can be toxic or allergenic:
Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach lesions (sores or ulcers). This tomato, Calgene’s  Flavr Savr, was the first commercialized GM food.
Mice fed GM peas (not subsequently commercialized) engineered with an insecticidal protein (alpha-amylase inhibitor) from beans showed a strong, sustained immune reaction against the GM protein. Mice developed antibodies against the GM protein and an allergic-type inflammation response (delayed hypersensitivity reaction). Also, the mice fed on GM peas developed an immune reaction to chicken egg white protein. The mice did not show immune or allergic-type inflammation reactions to either non-GM beans naturally containing the insecticide protein, to egg white protein fed with the natural protein from the beans, or to egg white protein fed on its own. The findings showed that the GM insecticidal protein acted as a sensitizer, making the mice susceptible to developing immune reactions and allergies to normally non-allergenic foods. This is called immunological cross-priming. The fact that beans naturally containing the insecticidal protein did not cause the effects seen with the peas that expressed the transgenic insecticidal protein indicated that the immune responses of the mice to the GM peas were caused by changes in the peas brought about by the genetic engineering process. In other words, the insecticidal protein was changed by the GM process so that it behaved differently in the GM peas compared with its natural form in the non-GM beans and the altered protein from the GM peas stimulated a potent immune response in the mice.
Mice fed GM soy showed disturbed liver, pancreas and testes function. The researchers found abnormally formed cell nuclei and nucleoli in liver cells, which indicates increased metabolism and potentially altered patterns of gene expression.
Mice fed GM soy over their lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in the liver than the control group fed non-GM soy.
Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart.
Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in uterus and ovaries compared with controls fed organic non-GM soy or a non-soy diet. Certain ill effects were found with organic soy as well as GM soy, showing the need for further investigation into the effects of soy-based diets (GM and non-GM) on reproductive health.
A review of 19 studies (including industry’s own studies submitted to regulators in support of applications to commercialise GM crops) on mammals fed with commercialised GM soy and maize that are already in our food and feed chain found consistent toxic effects on the liver and kidneys. Such effects may be markers of the onset of chronic disease, but long-term studies, in contrast to these reported short- and medium-term studies, would be required to assess this more thoroughly. Unfortunately, such long-term feeding trials on GMOs are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.
Rats fed insecticide-producing MON863 Bt maize grew more slowly and showed higher levels of certain fats (triglycerides) in their blood than rats fed the control diet. They also suffered problems with liver and kidney function. The authors stated that it could not be concluded that MON863 maize is safe and that long-term studies were needed to investigate the consequences of these effects.
Rats fed GM Bt maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and alterations in blood biochemistry.
A re-analysis of Monsanto’s own rat feeding trial data, submitted to obtain approval in Europe for three commercialised GM Bt maize varieties, MON863, MON810, and NK603, concluded that the maize varieties had toxic effects on liver and kidneys. The authors of the re-analysis stated that while the findings may have been due to the pesticides specific to each variety, genetic engineering could not be excluded as the cause. The data suggest that approval of these GM maize varieties should be withdrawn because they are not substantially equivalent to non-GM maize and are toxic.
Old and young mice fed GM Bt maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cells and in biochemical activity.
Rats fed GM MON810 Bt maize showed clear signs of toxicity, affecting the immune system, liver and kidneys.
Female sheep fed Bt GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system, while their lambs showed cellular changes in the liver and pancreas.
GM Bt maize DNA was found to survive processing and was detected in the digestive tract of sheep. This raises the possibility that the antibiotic resistance gene in the maize could move into gut bacteria, an example of horizontal gene transfer. In this case, horizontal gene transfer could produce antibiotic-resistant disease-causing bacteria (’superbugs’) in the gut.
Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity.
Rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition and toxic reactions in multiple organ systems.
Mice fed a diet of GM Bt potatoes or non-GM potatoes spiked with natural Bt toxin protein isolated from bacteria showed abnormalities in the cells and structures of the small intestine, compared with a control group of mice fed non-GM potatoes. The abnormalities were more marked in the Bt toxin-fed group. This study shows not only that the GM Bt potatoes caused mild damage to the intestines but also that Bt toxin protein is not harmlessly broken down in digestion, as GM proponents claim, but survives in a functionally active form in the small intestine and can cause damage to that organ.
Rats fed GM rice for 90 days had a higher water intake as compared with the control group fed the non-GM isogenic line of rice. The GM-fed rats showed differences in blood biochemistry, immune response, and gut bacteria. Organ weights of female rats fed GM rice were different from those fed non-GM rice. The authors claimed that none of the differences were ‘adverse’, but they did not define what they meant by ‘adverse’. Even if they had defined it, the only way to know if such changes are adverse is to extend the length of the study, which was not done. The authors conceded that the study ‘did not enable us to conclude on the safety of the GM food’.
Rats fed GM Bt rice developed significant differences as compared with rats fed the non-GM isogenic line of rice. These included differences in the populations of gut bacteria. The GM-fed group had 23% higher levels of coliform bacteria. There were differences in organ weights between the two groups, namely in the adrenals, testis and uterus. The authors concluded that the findings were most likely due to ‘unintended changes introduced in the GM rice and not from toxicity of Bt toxin’ in its natural, non-GM form.
A study on rats fed GM Bt rice found a Bt-specific immune response in the non-GM-fed control group as well as the GM-fed groups. The researchers concluded that the immune response in the control animals was due to their inhaling particles of the powdered Bt toxin-containing feed consumed by the GM-fed group. The researchers recommended that for future tests involving Bt crops, GM-fed and control groups should be kept separate. This indicates that animals can be extremely sensitive to very small amounts of GM proteins, so even low levels of contamination of conventional crops with GMOs could be harmful to health.
In these studies, a GM food was fed to one group of animals and its non-GM counterpart was fed to a control group. The studies found that the GM foods were more toxic or allergenic than their non-GM counterparts.
N.B References have been removed from this section for ease of reading. Full report is correctly referenced; please use original text when quoting/copying
*******
Splitting the pros and perils of genetically modified foods 
Leslie Beck

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 30, 2015


On Nov. 19, the U.S. FDA approved a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon as safe for human consumption. The AquAdvantage salmon, genetically modified so that its growth hormone remains continually active, reaches market size considerably faster than conventionally farmed salmon.
Genetically modified (GM) foods aren’t new. Since 1994, Health Canada has approved more than 120 GM foods, from apples and squash to soybeans and canola oil.
Unless your diet includes only foods labelled non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) or certified organic, you are probably eating GM foods. Whether that’s a bad thing is a matter of ongoing debate. Here’s what you need to know about GMOs and GM foods.
What is genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering allows scientists to transfer one or more genes from one organism (e.g. plant, animal or microbe) to another organism. The resulting organism is said to be a GMO because it has one or more genes from an unrelated species.
In most cases, the new gene gives the organism a useful trait. Genetically altered crops are more resistant to disease, pesticides, cold temperatures and/or drought. GM corn and soybeans, for example, have been given genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that produces proteins that kill insects. These GM crops are able to produce the same toxic proteins and protect themselves from disease-causing insects.
What are the benefits of GM foods?
Food crops engineered to tolerate insects, disease, pesticides, dry soil and extreme temperatures will produce higher yields and, as GM food advocates contend, can help feed our growing global population.
Depending on the crop and the introduced trait, GM crops can also benefit the environment by reducing pesticide use.
Genetic engineering can also give plants qualities that affect their shelf life, taste or nutritional profile. Some soybeans, for instance, have been modified to produce healthier oil.
Golden rice, genetically modified to contain high amounts of beta-carotene, has been developed as a potential way to combat vitamin A deficiency in poorer countries.
Besides salmon, are other GM animal foods in the food supply?
No. The AquAdvantage salmon is the first animal food to be allowed in the U.S. food supply. (It’s not expected to arrive in American grocery stores for at least two years.)
Health Canada has not yet approved any GM animal foods. But that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Scientists at the University of Guelph have genetically engineered a line of Yorkshire pigs, which have been submitted for regulatory approval from Health Canada and the U.S. FDA. The pigs excrete up to 70 per cent less phosphorus in manure than regular pigs, making them more environmentally friendly. (Phosphorus can pollute streams, rivers and lakes, killing off marine life.)
Which foods in Canada are genetically modified?
To date, the Canadian government has approved more than 120 GM foods. The four GM crops grown in Canada are soybean, canola, corn and sugar beets. That means food products made from these crops – including corn flakes, corn chips, canola oil, margarine, soy beverages, tofu and table sugar – are considered GM foods.
Food ingredients that come from GM crops include cornstarch, caramel colour, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lecithin are added to thousands of foods. (It should be noted, though, that when a GM crop is processed into certain ingredients such as HFCS, sugar or corn oil, virtually all of the DNA and protein – including the engineered gene – is eliminated.)
Genetically modified papaya and zucchini are approved for import from the United States. So is GM cottonseed oil, which may show up in cereals, breads, potato chips and snack foods.
Arctic apples, approved in March, 2015, and expected to reach Canadian grocery stores by late 2016, are genetically altered so they don’t turn brown when sliced.
Are GM foods safe to eat?
The potential health risks of GM foods remain theoretical. Opponents of genetically engineered foods contend they could give rise to allergies and antibiotic resistance and question their long-term safety to human health.
According to numerous regulatory agencies and scientific bodies, including Health Canada, the U.S. FDA, the European Food Safety Agency and the National Academy of Sciences, there is no evidence that GM foods pose any health risks to people.
Yet, there are no continuing epidemiological studies investigating the potential health effects of long-term GMO consumption. (Since GM foods are not labelled in North America, such a study is impossible to conduct.)
Do GMOs pose a threat to the environment?
It’s possible that crops engineered to tolerate pesticides could breed with weeds and lead to the development of so-called superweeds, which would require increased pesticide use.
Contamination of organic and conventional crops with GMOs, harm to insects that are not pests and loss of plant biodiversity are among other environmental concerns.
How are GM foods regulated in Canada?
Health Canada regulates the approval and sale of GM foods through the Novel Foods Regulation. Companies that wish to bring a GM food or GM crop seed to market are required to submit detailed scientific data to Health Canada, whose scientists then assess if the food is safe and won’t harm the environment.
How can I avoid eating GM foods?
In Canada (and the U.S.) GM foods are not required to be labelled unless the introduced gene poses a safety concern from allergens or a change in nutrient content. (GMO labels are mandatory in the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.)
Companies can, however, voluntarily label foods as “GMO-free or “does not contain GMOs.” If you want to avoid GMOs, you can also buy certified organic foods, which cannot be grown or produced with GMOs.
If you are unsure about a food, call the manufacturer to ask if GMOs are used to produce it.
Leslie Beck, a registered dietitian, is based at the Medisys clinic in Toronto.
*******Also See:
Genetic Manipulated Foods Are Not Healthy!
(Part 1)
24 May 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/2009/05/genetic-manipulated-foods-are-not.html
and
(Part 2)
11 February 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/02/genetic-manipulated-foods-are-not.html
and
(Part 3)
06 November 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/11/genetic-manipulated-foods-are-not.html
and
Vitamins, Genetic Food, Health
03 April 2007
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=12454184&postID=752623199071178666
and
Are GMO's Safe?
18 January 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/01/are-gmos-safe.html
and
GMO's: The Seeds of Death
17 August 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/08/also-see-genetic-manipulated-foods-are.html
*******

Common Core: Public Education or is it Indoctrination? (Part 4)

$
0
0
*******

Sneak Peek: Building the Machine Part II: The Parent Interviews  
Published on Jan 17, 2015
SNEAK PEEK: The Parent Interviews (2014)—Building the Machine, Part II—A Documentary about the Common Core
*******
A teacher describes why she left teaching in public schools... Common Core
Published on Dec 4, 2013
*******

Faces of Common Core
Published on Feb 19, 2014
This video takes a close, personal look at the struggles many of our children face with the new Common Core standards. These developmentally inappropriate standards are now used in 45 states. Our group, Faces of Common Core on Facebook, was created as a place to compare notes and support each other. To join the fight against Common Core, please visit www.stopcommoncore.com and find the link to your state's site.
*******
Common Core
Part 1
 By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
March 2, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
There is a great controversy today over the current educational reform movement known as Common Core (CC). Many people have offered specific criticisms of the movement, but they generally look at CC in isolation. However, it is important to understand the back ground of CC, and a good starting point for that begins with the Illuminati, which began on May 1, 1776.
The fundamental purpose of the Illuminati was to do away with existing authority (e.g., monarchical, religious, etc.) and adopt the principle of its founder, Adam Weishaupt, which was that they, the Illuminati or Enlightened, knew what was best for people. The leaders of CC today also believe they know, even better than parents, what is best in education for children in the United States. Relevant to education, certain members of the Illuminati became tutors to princes, who would then become czars, kings, etc. (e.g., Alexander I of Russia) and be under the influence of the Illuminati.
In terms of what we know today as elementary and secondary education, Illuminati member Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (a Swiss, code-named Alfred) had the greatest influence. According to Will Monroe's HISTORY OF THE PESTALOZZIAN METHOD IN THE UNITED STATES (1907), the educational ideas of Pestalozzi began to be printed in journals and textbooks in the United States in 1806. They began to be used in some school systems, especially in New England where they were viewed favorably be the intelligentsia of Horace Mann's day. This was the first half of the 1800s, and Mann became known as the "Father of the American Public Education."
Utopian Socialist Robert Owen visited Pestalozzi at Yverdon, Switzerland in 1818, and applied the Illuminist's educational principles in Britain and America. In 1825, Owen established the first commune in the United States in New Harmony, Indiana. Joining Owen in 1828 was Frances Wright (formerly Madame Francoise D'Arusmont from France) who, with Owen's son Robert Dale Owen and Orestes Brownson, formed the Workingmen's Party in New York.
According to A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (vol. 1) by Samuel Morison, Henry Steele Commager, and William Leuchtenburg, Frances Wright became "a lecture-platform apostle of...a system which she called 'National, Rational, Republican Education, Free for All, at the Expense of All, Conducted under the Guardianship of the State,' apart from the contaminating influence of parents." After Brownson became a Christian, he revealed in THE WORKS OF ORESTES BROWNSON (20 volumes) that their plan in establishing their political party was as follows: "The great object was to get rid of Christianity, and to convert our churches into halls of science. The plan was not to make open attacks upon religion, although we might belabor the clergy and bring them into contempt where we could; but to establish a system of state---we said national---schools, from which all religion was to be excluded, in which nothing was to be taught except such knowledge as is verifiable by the senses, and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children. Our complete plan was to take the children from their parents at the age of 12 or 18 months, and to have them nursed, fed, clothed, and trained in these schools at the public expense; but at any rate, we were to have godless schools for all the children of the country....The plan has been successfully pursued...,and the whole action of the country on the subject has taken the direction we sought to give it. One of the principal movers of the scheme had no mean share in organizing the Smithsonian Institute."
Brownson further revealed that the connection between the Workingmen's
Party, Robert Owen (father of Robert Dale Owen), Pestalozzi and Horace Mann is very important. In HORACE MANN: EDUCATIONAL STATESMAN, Heidelberg College (Ohio) Prof. E.I.F. Williams wrote: "The 'workingmen's movement' was an organization of the liberals in opposition to the conservative order....Its members were the radical wing of the Jacksonian democracy. In 1831 a large convention (of the Workingmen's Party) made up of farmers and workmen was held in Boston....Leaders such as Horace Mann (in Massachusetts)...urged their cause. Education was advanced as the surest and best method of advancing their aspirations....Labor leaders were enthusiastic about education intax-supported schools....Education soon took first place among the reforms they demanded. They urged the necessity of an 'equal, universal, republican system of education.'...Reform was the watch-word of the day....More than two hundred communists Utopias were established....For two or three decades, they centered the attention of the country on socialistic and communistic schemes for human betterment. One of the most famous of the communities was established at New Harmony, Indiana by Robert Owen."
Part 2
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
March 16, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
In HORACE MANN : EDUCAT0NAL STATESMAN, E.I.F. Williams related that Robert Owen "brought William McClure, 'father of American geology,' to organize his school. He first introduced the Pestalozzian system into the United States....Later, the Pestalozzian movement spread to other sections (of the country), and among its enthusiastic champions were Horace Mann....Very soon (after New Harmony) another society based on Owen's principles was begun at Yellow Springs, Ohio, where Antioch College was to be founded." Horace Mann was president of Antioch College from 1853 until his death on August 2, 1859. In 1837, Mann had established the first "normal" (public) school in the United States as part of his effort to promote non-sectarian education.
In 1848, the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO was published, including Plank No. 10, which provided for a "Combination of education with industrial production" (a type of school-to-work approach). Nine years later in 1857, the National Education Association (NEA, until 1870 called the National Teachers Association) was founded and emphasized the importance of teachers in children's education. Following this, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction John Swett in 1864 declared: "The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous...."
In 1879, Illuminati member Kirchenrat Karl Kasimir Wundt's (code name Raphael) grandson, Wilhelm Wundt established the first laboratory in experimental psychology at the University of Leipzig (Pavlov studied there in 1884). The first of his American students was G. Stanley Hall, who would become John Dewey's mentor at Johns Hopkins University (where Dewey received his doctorate in 1884). Educational experimentalists James McKeen Cattell, Charles Judd and James Earl Russell also received doctorates from Wundt. Dewey later become known as the "Father of Progressive Education," even though Dewey himself used that appellation in reference to Francis Parker, who had studied the ideas of Pestalozzi when in Europe.
Twelve years after receiving his doctorate, Dewey established in January 1896 his own laboratory school at the University of Chicago, an institution of higher learning well-endowed by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. This oil magnate in 1902 chartered the General Education Board, and appointed Frederick Gates (a Baptist minister) as chairman. Gates wrote Occasional Letter, No. 1 (published in THE WORLD'S WORK in 1912) in which he remarked: "In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk."
On October 12, 1917, THE NEW YORK TIMES published Judge John Hyland's comments about a letter by Dr. Abraham Flexner (Secretary of the General Education Board and formerly of the Carnegie Foundation describing a "secret conference" of New York City Board of Education's members to elect a board president who would institute a type of school-to-work outcome-based education program. Five years later, THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 27, 1922) covered a speech by Judge Hylan after he had become mayor of New York City.
In the speech, Mayor Hylan said: "The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, State and nation....The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes....These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country." Mayor Hylan quoted from Frederick Gates' paper mentioned above, and then said "This is the kind of education the coolies receive in China, but we are not going to stand for it in these United States. One of my first acts as Mayor was to pitch out, bag and baggage, from the educational system of our city the Rockefeller agents and the Gary plan of education to fit the children for the mill and factory."
Part 3  
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
March 30, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
Following the theme of the Illuminati and Common Core proponents that "they know what is best for the rest of us," Arthur Calhoun in `1919 authored the third volume in his series, A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, which became a widely used social service textbook. In it, he noted that "the child passes more and more into the custody of community experts," and he also elaborated that "the new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen (a view of the Illuminati), served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme....As soon as the new family, consisting of only the parents and the children, stood forth, society saw how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need for community care....As familism weakens, society has to assume a larger parenthood.
The school begins to assume responsibility for the functions thrust upon it....The kindergarten grows downward toward the cradle and there arises talk of neighborhood nurseries....It seems clear that at least in its early stages, socialism will mean an increased amount of social control....We may expect in the socialist commonwealth a system of public educational agencies that will begin with the nursery and follow the individual through life....Those persons that experience alarm at the thought of intrinsic changes in family institutions should remember that in the light of social evolution, nothing is right or valuable in itself." Remember the above references to "cradle" and "follow the individual through life" when reading a later part of this series describing a letter written
by National Center on Education and the Economy president Marc Tucker on November 11, 1992 to Hillary Clinton about Bill Clinton's presidential victory giving them a chance to implement their "cradle to grave" plan for everyone.
In the 1920s, "Father of Progressive Education" (and later National Education Association honorary president) John Dewey went to the Soviet Union and authored an article in the December 5, 1928 edition of THE NEW REPUBLIC, in which he described "the marvelous development of progressive educational ideas and practices under the fostering care of the Bolshevist government...the required collective and cooperative mentality....The great task of the school is to counteract and transform those domestic and neighborhood tendencies...the influence of home and Church....In order to accomplish this end, the teachers must in the first place know with great detail and accuracy just what the conditions are to which pupils are subject in the home (remember this when reading about Common Core's collection of large amounts of personal data)....One of the most interesting pedagogical innovations...to discover the actual conditions that influence pupils in their out-of-school life...(is using) the themes of written work, the compositions of pupils, and also a detailed study throughout the year of home and family budgets....The institution of the family is being sapped indirectly rather than by frontal attack....There is no word one hears oftener than Gruppe, and all sorts of groups are instituted that militate against the primary social importance of the family unit.
In consequence, to anyone who looks at the matter cold-bloodedly, free from sentimental associations clustering about the historic family institution, a most interesting sociological experimentation is taking place....Our special concern here is with the role of the schools in building up forces and factors whose natural effect is to undermine the importance and uniqueness of family life....The earliest section of the school system, dealing with children from three to seven, aims to keep children under its charge six, eight, and ten hours a day, and in ultimate ideal this procedure is to be universal and compulsory....Reference to this phase of Soviet education may perhaps be suitably concluded by a quotation from Lenin: 'We must declare openly what is concealed, namely, the political function of the school....It is to construct communist society.'"
The next year (1929), Edward Thorndike (trained by Wundtians in the United States) and Arthur Gates authored ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF EDUCATION, in which one reads: "Traditionally the elementary school has been primarily devoted to teaching the fundamental subjects, the three R's, and closely related disciplines....Artificial exercises, like drills on phonetics, multiplication tables, and formal writing movements, are used to a wasteful degree. Subjects such as arithmetic, language, and history include content that is intrinsically of little value...."
(In an upcoming part of this series, NEA president Catherine Barrett will make a similar comment in 1973.) Pursuing these "progressive education" attitudes, Thorndike will produce new spellers, math texts, dictionaries, and textbooks on education and educational testing.
A year later (1930), the "Dick and Jane" basal reading series begins, using the "look-say" or "whole word" method of reading instruction Up until this time, there was a high rate of literacy among the people of the United States, but the consequences of "progressive educators" using the "look-say" approach (instead of the highly successful intensive phonics method) will prove disastrous, causing a growing problem of illiteracy.
Part 4
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
April 13, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
Four years after the look-say "Dick and Jane" basal reading series was introduced, in 1934 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (the last of a 17-volume study concerning American education) of the Commission on Social Studies of the American Historical association was published. The work of the Commission was financed ($340,000) by the Carnegie Corporation. Commenting on the document in THE NEW REPUBLIC article "A New Education for A New
America" (July 29, 1936), British Socialist Professor Harold Laskiremarked that the volume contained "a content of teaching which frankly admits that the age of government control has arrived....For, at bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a socialist America."
Two years after Laski wrote this, on March 1, 1938, according to George Mosse's NAZI CULTURE in the chapter "The Key: Education of Youth," under the Nazis (National Socialists), "the textbooks were increasingly National Socialist, the teachers were regimented....The individual states were abolished....The Nazis attempted to unify the school system, as they 'meshed the gears' of all other activities in the Third Reich....Changes in the curriculum brought all schools closer together....Social pressures aided the Nazis in getting rid of the influence of the older generation...." Under Common Core, assessments drive curricula to unify nationally education in America, and school systems' teachers become to a certain extent regimented in preparing students for the assessments (getting correct answers is not enough, but also knowing how), whether in individual classrooms or for the College Boards.
"Getting rid of the influence of the older generation" in the United States was also important for the power elite. And the way to do this was through "critical thinking." Three years after the Nazis began the educational program mentioned above, Edward Glaser authored AN EXPERIMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL THINKING (1941). It was one the first books on the subject and followed the psychodrama and sociometry work of Rumanian psychiatrist Jacob Moreno in the early part of the 20th century.
Critical thinking developed into critiquing, which in turn developed into criticizing the values of "the older generation." The purpose was to establish a "generation gap," with the new generation adopting more humanistic than Biblical values.
By the end of World War II, the National Education Association (NEA) was promoting world government. In the NEA JOURNAL (January 1946), Joy Elmer Morgan (editor of the NEA JOURNAL, 1921-1955) wrote "The Teacher and World Government," in which he proclaimed: "In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher...can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation....At the very top of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession."
Similarly two years later, Sir Julian Huxley (first director-general of UNESCO) authored UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY (1948), in which he wrote of UNESCO's educational program that it could "stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...political unification in some sort of world government will be required...."
Of course, if there were to be a world government, something would have to be done to bring capitalist and communist governments together. In 1953 Ford Foundation president H. Rowan Gaither told Norman Dodd (research director for the Congressional Reece Committee) that the foundation was operating under directives from the White House "to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."
As mentioned earlier, "Father of Progressive Education" John Dewey very much admired what the Soviets (remember that the second S in USSR stands for Socialist) were doing. He taught at Columbia University from 1905 to 1930, and by the early 1950s, the Deweyites had taken control of Columbia's Teachers College. In A HISTORY OF TEACHERS COLLEGE: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (1954), Lawrence Cremin et al explained that "the single most powerful education force in the world is at 120th Street and Broadway in New York City. Your children's teachers go there for advanced training....With one hundred thousand alumni, TC has managed to seat about one-third of the presidents and deans now (1953) in office at accredited U.S. teaching training schools. Its graduates make up about twenty percent of all our public school teachers. Over a fourth of the superintendents of schools in the one-hundred sixty-eight U.S. cities with at least fifty thousand population are TC-trained."

Part 5
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
April 27, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
[Note: Just like Skull & Bones (S&B) member John Kerry was the designated loser (he could have challenged the vote in Ohio, but he didn't) to fellow S&B member George W. Bush in 2004, now Lincoln Chafee (classmate of Jeb Bush at Phillips Academy in Andover, MA) has entered the Democratic race for the presidency against Hillary Clinton. Chafee's role is to oppose Hillary from the left, thereby dampening leftist support for her in the general election. I have already written how Hillary was "dirtied up" with Benghazi (and more recently by her emails), and how potential Republican threats to Jeb such as Perry in Texas, Christie in New Jersey, and McDonald in Virginia were "dirtied up" as well.
Recently, Jeb's Florida friend Sen. Marco Rubio has entered the Republican race which will split the Hispanic vote with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. This is like Teddy Roosevelt split the vote with William Howard Taft allowing Woodrow Wilson to be elected president in 1912, and Ross Perot took enough votes away from George H.W. Bush in 1992 so Bill Clinton was elected president. Additionally in the 2016 race, Rand Paul will siphon off the libertarian Republican voters, all of which will allow Jeb Bush to win some early primaries with only a plurality (nowhere near a majority) of votes. Jeb's team will also see to it that conservative Republicans' love for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin will be dampened by showing his lack of knowledge of foreign affairs and asking such questions as "If Scott Walker is really a conservative, why does he say he admires/respects Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright?"
Another example of how the global power elite runs things is the fact that President Obama is lining up with Congressional Republicans and against his own Party regarding authorization for the currently discussed Pacific trade deal. When it comes to the global economy, presidents whether Democratic or Republican are told what to do by the global power elite.
For those who read my last column on April 13, you will want to read the last paragraph again as something has been added.]
Relevant to the effort to move us toward a "comfortable merger" with the Soviet Union as mentioned above, in 1960 HEW published SOVIET EDUCATION PROGRAMS, wherein one reads: "...wherever we went, we felt the pulse of the Soviet government's desire to educate and train a new generation of technically skilled citizens....USSR plans to bring all secondary school children into labor education and training experiences through the regular school program."
Beginning in the early 1960s, the Deweyites in control of education in the United States moved the emphasis in education from the cognitive domain (basics of reading, math, etc.) to the affective domain (social relationships, feelings, etc.). Grade inflation and social promotions began along with a fall in SAT scores. The educational elite said that the "new math" would help the United States to lead the world in the future (similar to Common Core proponents today saying students will have more depth of understanding), but it turned out to be a disaster.
Following the shift away from the basics, NEA president Catherine Barrett in the early 1970s in SATURDAY REVIEW OF EDUCATION remarked that : "Dramatic changes in the way we will raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated,
particularly in terms of schooling....We will need to recognize that the so-called 'basic skills,' which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one-quarter of the present school day....When this happens---and it's near---the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher....We will be agents of change." Furthermore, Carolyn Warner, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction, was quoted in the ARIZONA REPUBLIC (January 7, 1975) as saying that "those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the children. The latter gave them only life, the former teach them the art of living."
In 1972, UNESCO's bestseller LEARNING TO BE: THE WORLD OF EDUCATION TODAY AND TOMORROW was published. In this editor work, the authors say they are in search of a "new educational order...based on scientific and technological training, one of the essential components of scientific humanism." The book also emphasized relativity and dialectical thought, and proclaimed that "...an individual should avoid systematically setting up his beliefs and convictions...his behavior and customs as models or rules valid for all times."

Part 6


By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 11, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis311.
[Note: The situation in Baltimore looks like the Alinsky Model. Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky, and Barack Obama became a community organizer as a follower of Alinsky. There is an Acknowledgement to Lucifer at the front of Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS, and in that book, Alinsky says the community organizer should "rub raw the resentments of the community" and "fan the latent hostilities." Isn't that what occurred in Baltimore?]
In the early 1970s, Michael Lerner (who would become an important adviser to Hillary Clinton) authored THE NEW SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, in which he proclaimed: "Education will be radically transformed in our socialist community...the main emphasis will be on learning how to... live and work collectively....The next level is learning some series of skills, for one's first set of jobs." And in Vladimir Turchenko's THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION AND THE REVOLUTION IN EDUCATION (1976) imported into the United States is described "linking instruction with productive labor" (this is similar to plank 10 of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO mentioned earlier).
The year after Turchenko's book appears in the United States, on November 17, 1977 U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Mary Berry delivered an address, "The Chinese Experience in Education: What America Stands to Learn," at the University of Illinois. She revealed that the U.S. Office of Education was developing Lifelong Learning programs modeled after the Communist Chinese programs. Two years later, the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) was established under President Jimmy Carter, fulfilling a promise he had made to the NEA.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected president, taking office in January 1981. Over the next several years, Carter administration holdovers left the National Institute of Education (within USDOE). One of them, Marc Tucker (an NIE Associate Director) went to the newly established (early 1985) Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (CFEE). This was after North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt had written an article in PHI DELTA KAPPAN (Fall 1984) advising linking education and the economy, and he suggested to David Hamburg (Carnegie Foundation CEO) that he fund a CFE (and Hunt became Vice-Chairman).
The year after CFEE was begun, Mike Cohen left NIE in 1986 and went to the National Governors Association (NGA). About the same time, Ramsey Selden (who had opposed our efforts to have more intensive systematic phonics taught in schools) left NIE and went to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) as one of their lead education personnel. The NGA (of which Hunt has been a chairman) and CCSSO would eventually be the lead organizations promoting Common Core.
In the Winter 1987/88 edition of ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION, Professors Martin Haberman and James Collins wrote in "The Future of the Teaching Profession" that "schooling is now seen primarily as job training and, for this reason, quite comparable to schooling in non-democratic societies. Once education is redefined as a personal good and as emphasizing preparation for the world of work as its first purpose, our schools can appropriately be compared with those of the USSR."
At the same time as Haberman's and Collins' article appeared, the CFEE changed its name to the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) with board members including David Rockefeller, Jr. and Hillary Clinton. Early in 1989, NCEE produced TO SECURE OUR FUTURE: THE FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION, which would play an important role in framing the issues and shaping the agreements that would be made at the Education Summit held at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville) in September 1989.
George H.W. Bush (Skull & Bones member elected president in November 1988) and the governors of the 50 states met at the Summit and agreed to establish National Education Goals. Even though President Bush was a Republican and had many Republican governors from whom to choose, he selected Gov. Bill Clinton Rhodes scholar) to head the initial work. This is an example of how the Power Elite manages both the political left and right.
Following the summit, the NGA would ask members of NCEE's staff to assist in the development of national education goals (6 but later 8). This process would culminate in the announcement of national education goals by President George H.W. Bush in his January 31,1990 State of the Union address.
In the summer of 1989, NCEE's Board of Trustees created the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce to study the current and future skill needs of our nation's non-college workforce. The Commission then compiled a report, AMERICA'S CHOICE: HIGH SKILLS OR LOW WAGES!, which was released in June 1990.
In February 1990, the U.S. Department of Labor established the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), which was charged with "defining a common core of skills that constitute job readiness in this new economic environment" (note the term "common core," and Gov. Hunt would title his program "JobReady"). In 1992, SCANS issued SKILLS AND TASKS FOR JOBS: A SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000. This is an example of why the American people should never let the national elite tell the rest of us what to do.
On page 3-199 of the report under Responsibility (F13), it states the following: "Milk Cows. To perform this task, the farmer brings cows to a barn early in the morning and sets up milking equipment, and ensures proper operation. The farmer then brings the first cows into the milking parlor and feeds them by attaching milkers....Task ID#: 7131631." These "geniuses" actually said you feed cows by attaching milkers to them !
Part 7
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
May 25, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
[Note: Rarely do I make a personal plea, but I am now. Many of you know that I have been taking care of my mother since she broke her femur in 5 places 9 years ago. On May 18, she became 91 years old, and I do all the cooking, cleaning, washing, etc. In the past 9 years, I have had a regular night's sleep only about 7 times due to all the necessary caregiving work. As a fulltime caregiver, I have not been able to have a typical salaried job, and if I worked and paid someone else to be a caregiver, I would have to pay them not much under $50,000 a year. So either way, I am out a lot of money.
Recently, the Veterans Administration (VA) notified my mother that they had made a mistake, and she owed them over $7000 from her VA's widow's pension payment. Plus, the VA reduced her monthly pension payment to just $32. How is anyone supposed to buy food, etc. on that? Then just a few days ago, the owner of our condominium notified us that she is going to sell it. My mother has been in the hospital twice (for dehydration and a fall) in the last month, and a move at this time would not be helpful to her health. The only way to be sure she will not be forced to move is to buy the condominium, but I obviously do not have the money to do that. However, you could help me to make a down-payment and pay for other expenses, so anything you can send me (in care of NewsWithViews) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.]
In 1990, NCEE formed the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, which had the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF, founded by radical Saul Alinsky) produce a concept paper, "Engaging the Public: One Way to Organize." Remember what Alinsky wrote about community organizers "rubbing raw resentments" and "fanning latent hostilities."
On May 23, 1991, the Bush administration presented to Congress the "America 2000 Excellence in Education Act," based on the 6 (later 8) national education goals and calling for a "national test" based on national standards. Although the test was supposed to be voluntary, the administration urged colleges to consider test results in their admissions decisions and employers to consider them when making hiring decisions.
President Bush's Secretary of Education from 1991 to 1993 was Lamar Alexander, who endorsed the concept of "a brand new American school" that would be open from 6am to 6pm year-round. He said "these schools will serve children from age 3 months to 18. That may be a shocking thought to you, but if you were to do an inventory of every baby in your community, and think about what the needs of those babies were for the next four or five years, you might see that those needs might not be served any other way."
Also in 1991, WE MUST TAKE CHARGE: OUR SCHOOLS AND OUR FUTURE, by Chester Finn was published. Finn had been head of the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. In the book, not only does Finn advocate a national curriculum, but he also stated that local control "has become an anachronism no longer justified by research, consistent with sound fiscal policy or organizational theory, suited to our mobility patterns, or important to the public." After reading the book, President Bush's Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander told Finn, "You saved me 6 months" in organizing the president's education initiative.
Likewise in 1991, the "Michigan Model" Common Core Curriculum was introduced. And from July 29 to August 4, teachers from around the country met at Snowmass, CO and produced dozens of performance tasks for students that "are tied to world-class standards that all students will need to meet," according the NCEE's president Marc Tucker. In a press release dated August 5, Colorado Gov. Roy Romer at Snowmass was quoted as saying that President Bush's proposal for a national student examination could lean heavily on the work of the New Standards Project.
A few months later, in the March 1992 edition of EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, an article titled "Will America Choose High Skills or Low wages" by Ira Magaziner (Rhodes scholar) and Hillary Clinton was published, in which they referred to President Bush's education initiative, "America 2000," announcing the development of a national examination system for the nation's K-12 schoolsystems. 
Part 8
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
June 8, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
[Note. In my NewsWithViews column for April 15, 2013, I predicted that terrorists could set an apartment complex in this country on fire at night, and on May 27, 2015, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reported that the L.A. Police Department's anti-terrorism division arrested Dawud Abdulwali "on suspicion of arson in connection with a fire that destroyed a downtown Los Angeles apartment complex" on December 8, 2014 at 1:20am (night). Abdulwali may have been a "lone wolf," but he may also have been prompted by ISIS, which was looking at how long it took for him to be found and arrested. The time between the fire and his arrest was about 170 days. Suppose ISIS now calculated one of its members here could have as many as 170 days to set as many apartment or forest fires as possible!]
Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner were on the board of NCEE which wanted, according to A HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PLAN (1992), a "national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards, and the standards are the same everywhere."
Also in 1992, NCEE president Marc Tucker co-authored THINKING FOR A LIVING: WORK SKILLS AND FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, in which he wrote: "As this is written (1992), the former members of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are setting out to fashion new societies....Many of those countries have done a better job than we of building effective human resource development programs, and for that reason, may yet surprise the world in economic prowess."
On August 2, 1992, Assistant Labor Secretary Roberts Jones announced that the federalgovernment was preparing to deny aid and student loans to schools that fail to prepare their graduates with the skills needed to compete for jobs in the modern workplace, saying "This is a touchy subject."
Three months later, NCEE president Marc Tucker wrote a revealing letter to his board member Hilary Clinton on November 11, 1992 saying he had just come from David Rockefeller, Jr.'s office where they were "celebrating" Bill Clinton's election as president, as that would allow putting into place their agenda to integrate education into a national system of "human resources development...from cradleto grave...(for) everyone....We propose that Bill (Clinton) take a leaf out of the German book" (regarding required) "apprenticeship slots."
Relevant to Tucker's letter, American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Lynne Cheney wrote in her April 2, 1997 article "Whose National Standards?" in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: "Undersecretary of Education Mike Smith has worked closely with the NCEE. Like Robert Schwartz, then head of educational giving for the Pew Foundation, Mr. Smith was among those whom NCEE president Marc Tucker brought together right after the 1992 election to advise Mrs. Clinton. After the meeting Mr. Tucker wrote an 18-page letter to "Dear Hillary" advising that the Clintons aim to " remold the entire American system" of education and training. Crucial to spinning a "seamless web" of education and labor policy that would envelop all Americans "from cradle to grave," Mr. Tucker wrote, are "clear national standards of performance."
The result of the Tucker-Clinton plan was that Tucker's ally at the National Institute of Education (where I worked) within the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Mike Cohen, wrote Goals 2000 for President Clinton's Secretary of Education RichardRiley, for whom Cohen was a Special Assistant for several years after working for the National Governors Association (NGA). On April 21, 1993 President Clinton transmitted the "Goals 2000: Educate America Act," to Congress.
Title I of the legislation "codified into law the 6 (later 8) national goals." Title II of the legislation dealt with national education standards and assessments. And Title IV established a National Skill Standards Board. One of the Board members was Carolyn Warner, who as the State Superintendent of Education for Arizona said that "those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the children. The latter gave them only life, the former teach them the art of living" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, January 7, 1975).
Commenting on the legislation, Dianne Ravitch (Assistant Secretary of OERI during the Bush administration) wrote in the May 26, 1993 NEW YORK TIMES "Clinton's Math: More Gets Less," in which she stated: "The Clinton administration's school reform bill would expand dramatically the scope and cost of federal regulation of local schools....To satisfy Congressional critics, the Administration revised its bill, laying the foundation for an interventionist Federal role in local schooling....At the heart of the bill is a powerful new agency, called the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which would function like a national school board. It would certify national curriculum standards, state tests and state 'opportunity to learn' standards."
On March 26, 1994, the U.S. Senate passed the legislation (the House passed it earlier), and Goals 2000 became law with 8 goals codified, and provision for a National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which would certify "what all students should know and be able to do" and certify "national content and student performance standards." These last provisions amounted to the widely objectionable "outcome-based education," which would later be combined with "school-to-work" to form the basis of Common Core. In 1994, Sen. Ted Kennedy's School-to-Work Opportunities Act also passed Congress.
Mike Cohen mentioned above was "detailed" on June 28,1996 from the U.S. Department of Education to the White House to become President Clinton's advisor on education. In that position, Cohen was able to exert great influence upon the President's February 4, 1997 "State of the Union" address, in which the president delivered a "Call to Action" concerning education, calling for "national standards representing what all our students must know to succeed in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. Every state and school must shape the curriculum to reflect these standards....To help students meet the standards and measure their progress, we will lead an effort over the next two years to develop national tests of student achieve in reading and math."
Part 9
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
July 27, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis314.htm
[Note: Polls are showing Donald Trump at or near the top in the Republican primary race for the presidency. However, have you considered the possibility that he is really the Democrats' (Hillary's) secret weapon? It is true that he has been critical of Hillary Clinton, but he is not saying anything other Republicans haven't said about her. So who is he really hurting with his comments about Sen. John McCain, Mexicans and others? The consensus is that his outbursts are severely harming "the Republican brand." But what if that's the whole purpose? He has even threatened to run as a third party candidate, which would guarantee a Democrat victory. What could be his motive for secretly causing the Democrats to win? It's obvious ! He's sympatico on important issues. For example, he has been very pro-abortion rights, and he has given money to leading liberal Democrats Hillary Clinton, Senators Harry Reid and Charles Schumer U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others! Just consider the possibility that Trump's candidacy is part of a secret Democrat (Hillary) plan!]
Commenting on President Clinton's proposed national standards, two months after his State of the Union address, former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities Lynne Cheney wrote: "Whose National Standards?" (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 2, 1997) referring to an earlier attempt to develop national history standards and stating: "Ninety-nine members of the U.S. Senate voted to reject history standards that would have students learning more about Joseph McCarthythan George Washington, more about Indian chief Speckled Snake than about Thomas Edison."
The same is occurring under Common Core (CC) today. College Board (CB) president (and Rhodes Scholar) David Coleman announced the 34 Advanced Placement (AP) courses high school students take would be aligned with CC. Now AP teachers must teach the CB's "Framework" defining "the required knowledge of each period" in history. The CB website states that "all questions (in the AP exam) are derived from the course's stated objectives." In the "required knowledge" for the American Revolutionary period, there's no Jefferson, Adams, Madison or Franklin. In the Civil War period, there's no Gettysburg Address. In the World War II period, there's no Hitler, D-Day or Truman. Regarding the Civil Rights movement, there's no Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, etc.
The primary entity promoting CC has been Achieve, which was founded in 1996. Its first president was Robert Schwartz (who had worked at NIE where I worked), and one of its first co-chairmen (from 1996-2002) was IBM's former CEO Lewis Gerstner. Shortly after Achieve was founded,Gerstner made an announcement that indicated that he and other CEO's would consider locating/expanding or not their corporations' facilities in a particular place in the U.S. based upon whether the locality or state had adopted Achieve's internationally benchmarked standards!
Relevant to these internationally benchmarked, most people do not realize that CC is part of a much larger international effort. As part of a New Transatlantic Agreement, on May 5-6, 1997 the U.S. and the European Union convened a major conference, "Bridging the Atlantic: People-to-People Links" calling for "thematic networks for curriculum development" and stating that "governments too are obliged to adapt their economic, training and social welfare programs." The "Partners in a Global Economy Working Group" of the conference discussed "what redesigning of curricula is required...(i.e., what career skills are needed)...."
At this time, on the National Skill Standards Board website was mention of a report by the Tavistock Institute for the European Commission. The report was completed in October 1997 and described the relevancy of Goals 2000, SCANS typology with its "profound implications for the curriculum and training changes that this will require" and what skills standards and portable credentials "benchmarked to international standards...."
As the movement toward global education increased, George W. Bush was elected president, taking office in 2001, and his Secretary of Education Rod Paige on October 3, 2003 in Paris stated: "The United States is pleased to return to UNESCO....Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of the world." President Obama would later refer to himself as a citizen of the world, but the problem with this concept, as opposed to resident or inhabitant of the world, is that "citizenship" entails legal obligations. And world citizenship obligations would trump those of national citizenship.
On November 17, 2004 at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft (Bill Gates founder and CEO) to develop a "master curriculum" for teacher training and information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. Gates initialed every page and agreed that this curriculum was to reflect UNESCO's values. These values were explained in first UNESCO Director-General Sir Julian Huxley's UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY as including "a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background" with "transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...political unification in some sort of world government would be required...."
The next year (2005), Bill Gates funded the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce (created by NCEE president Marc Tucker). And in 2008, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the International Benchmarking Advisory Group report for CC standards on behalf of the National Governors Association (NGA), Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve titled "Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education" showing the U.N. is a member of the Common Core Advisory Group (also see "How Bill Gates pulled off the Common Core revolution" in THE WASHINGTON POST, June 8, 2014).
Concerning Achieve, in January 2003 Mike Cohen had become the new head of this organization. He had been director of education policy at the NGA (1986-1990), director of the National Alliance for Restructuring Education (1990-1993), senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley under President Clinton. He was detailed to the White House from 1996 to 1999, and then became U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Elementary and Secondary Education (1999-2001). Under Cohen, Achieve "formed the Partnership for the Assessment of College and Career Readiness (PARCC), one of the two organizations developing common assessments, and helped develop Common Core State Standards" (see www.achieve.org/michael-cohen).
Part 10
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
October 19, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis317.
The next major step in the development of CC occurred in June 2008 when the NGA co-hosted an education forum with the Hunt Institute (a project of former N.C. Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.---see my previous NewsWithViews columns regarding Jim Hunt as an agent of the Power Elite, PE). This was followed by the June 1, 2009 release of a report that 46 states had joined a "State-Led Process to Develop a Common Core of Standards."
The NGA, CCSSO and Achieve had already issued their own report calling for national education standards, and although the process of developing the standards is advertised as "state-led," the license agreement with says: "NGA/CCSSO shall be acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards." In case you think this means the and CCSSO take responsibility for the results of CC, the license goes on to say in capital letters: "THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY (sic), FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRIGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE....UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO , INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGO LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO."
Entering the picture at this time is Sir Michael Barber, placing CC in a global setting (even the Programme for International Student Assessment is being aligned with CC). In May 2010, he founded the U.S. Education Delivery Institute, which formed a partnership with Achieve to provide leadership training for CC. Barber also became the leader for the PARCC consortium. So who is Sir Michael Barber? He is the chief education officer for the Pearson Foundation which has offices in over 70 nations. Pearson has taken over many education publishing companies (e.g., the education divisions of HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Addison-Wesley Longman, etc.). Barber majored in history at Oxford University and taught in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), and is no doubt familiar with Cecil Rhodes. In November 2012, he began the Learning Curve for Pearson, but it was commissioned by THE ECONOMIST (magazine) Intelligence Unit (which has connections with MI6, British Intelligence). Jeb Bush is a leading candidate (and PE favorite) in the 2016 presidential race, and Pearson has been a top corporate sponsor of Bush's education foundation.
According to author Orlean Koehle in THE HIDDEN C's OF COMMON CORE, there are 5 lead writers for the CC assessments, none of whom has any K-12 classroom teaching experience in the subjects for which they prepared the assessments. Two of these, College Board head (since 2012) David Coleman in English and Jason Zimba in math, are Rhodes scholars (remember Cecil Rhodes and his secret Society of the Elect "to take the government of the whole world" wanted to penetrate 4 main areas, one of which was education). Coleman and Zimba had gone to Chicago with their New York organization The Grow Network to produce data studies for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) with Board member Barack Obama, who had been recruited there by radical Bill Ayers (Obama was CAC's first chairman and Ayers co-chairman, serving together for 8 years). Although CC is advertised as promoting high standards, Zimba speaking before the Massachusetts Department of Education (March 2010) admitted that the CC math standards would only prepare students for a minimum junior college level (see Koehle). For one thing, CC defers algebra until 9th grade, which makes it difficult to complete calculus in high school and therefore more difficult to get in the better colleges.
On February 19, 2014 National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel posted a letter on NEAToday.org stating: "Seven of ten teachers believe that implementation of the standards is going poorly in their schools. Worse yet, teachers report that there has been little to no attempt to allow educators to share what's needed to get (CC) implementation right. In fact, two-thirds of all teachers report that they have not even been asked how to implement these new standards in their classrooms."
Two months later, on Stephen Colbert's April 8, 2014 TV show, he said: "I have long opposed Obama's Common Core education curriculum that sets uniform standards across all the States. Different States have different values. I don't want my kids ending up on Colorado's drug educatin couse that classifies weed as a condiment. As much as I didn't expect it, I may be coming around to the common core, as it turns out Common Core testing prepares our youth for what they will face as adults, constant stress and confusion...and passive, aggression note taking." He later gives an example of a 2nd grader explaining how he got a math answer. The child wrote: "I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed with the answer that my brain got."
Part 11
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 1, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis318.
[Note: In the 1968 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Hubert Humphrey said one of the most devastating ads opponent Gene McCarthy used against him was the slogan "The People Against Humphrey." Therefore, when the Republicans choose their candidate, they should use the slogan "(Candidate's name) and the People Against Hillary Clinton's Radical Liberal Agenda."]

Rhodes scholar David Coleman's intent is to align his College Board SATs to CC (see THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 5, 2014).

In Coleman's English portion of the SAT, challenging words like "depreciatory" have been removed to align with the lower standards of CC. So if CC is not about higher standards, what purpose does Coleman serve? In the past, parents have been able to opt out of faddish education reform movements (e.g., Outcome-Based Education), but with Coleman aligning the SATs with CC, even private, religious, or home-schooling parents will have to align their assessments with CC if they want their children to score well on the SATs and get into a good college.

But CC isn't just about English, math, history, etc. It is also about changing values. For example, the mother of an 8-year-old girl in Louisiana said her daughter had been assigned homework about adultery, and the teacher said she got the assignment from CC materials for third graders (Scripps Media, October 20, 2013). CC is also about data collection. In "Push Against CC Gains Momentum" (EDUCATION REPORTER, May 2013), one reads: "CC gives unprecedented access to students' personal information to schools and third parties....The Obama administration made changes to the Family Rights and Privacy Act, broadening the collection of students' information and sharing it with other agencies. This information will not only be available to schools, but also to researchers and private companies....'Turning massive amounts of personal data about public school students (over) to a private corporation without any public input is profoundly disturbing and irresponsible," the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union told the DAILY NEWS. The Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington is suing the U.S. Department of Education in an effort to stop the illegal collection, storage, and sharing of student data (3-13-13)."
Some states have had second thoughts about CC and have developed their own standards and assessments. Unfortunately, they often still align them CC so their high school students can score well on the SAT which is align with CC.
At this point, you may be wondering what is so bad about the CC assessments. Sandra Stotsky and James Milgram were members of a national validation committee asked to sign off on CC in 2010, but they did not, with Stotsky criticizing the English/language arts standards and Milgram characterizing the methods for solving math problems as convoluted. As an example of CC's convoluted math, the simple addition of 29 plus 17 to equal 46 becomes the following: 29 is changed to 20 plus 9, and 17 is changed to 10 plus 7. The 20 and 10 are added to make 30, and the 9 and 7 are added to make 16. The 16 becomes 10 plus 6, and the 10 is added to the 30 to make 40, which is added to the 6 to make 46.
Stotsky explained that the CC standards are really skill sets that will lower the academic level of what 70% of students study, replacing a good deal of classical literature with informational texts. Concerning math, child clinical psychologist Dr. Megan Koschnick explained that CC's practices require students to "reason abstractly" beginning in kindergarten, but she pointed out that children cannot engage in abstract thinking until age 11 or 12! In "Making Math Education Even Worse" (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, August 5, 2014), National Academy of Sciences award-winning University of California at Berkeley math professor emeritus Marina Ratner wrote: "The Common Core standards were several years behind the old (California) standards....(The) requirement of visual models and creating stories is all over the Common Core.
The students were constantly told to draw models to answer trivial questions such as finding 20% of 80....This model-drawing mania went on in my grandson's class for the entire year, leaving no time to cover geometry and other important topics....The most astounding statement I have read is the claim that Common Core standards are 'internationally benchmarked.' They are not. The Common Core fails any comparison with the standards of high-achieving countries....They are lower in the total scope of learned material, in the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical concepts and skills....The Common Core standards willmove the U.S. even closer the bottom in internationalranking."
And New York State's 2013 high school principal of the year Carol Burris reported that as a result of CC, "We see kids (who) don't want to go to school anymore." Regarding CC math, Ms. Burris remarked: "I fear that they are creating a generation of young students who are learning to hate mathematics" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 17, 2014).
If you look at George Washington University's Center for Education Policy report in the February 10, 2015 "Compendium of Research on the Common Core State Standards" (at www.cep-dc.org), you will see that in an evaluation of 60 pieces of research used to support CC, there is no evidence to support the claim that CC standards will improve student achievement.
The beauty of the American educational system in the past was that the 50 states were like 50 laboratories. And if one state developed new teaching methods or activities that improved academic achievement, other states could voluntarily adopt them. However, there was no one-size fits all, top-down directed, standards-based assessments such as CC has, and which Americans should reject.
© 2015 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
E-Mail: Not Available

*******
and from FaceBook
KSFO Hot Talk 560's photo.
*******
Also See:
Common Core and Mental Health!
11 July 2014
and
Common Core: Public Education or is it Indoctrination?
(Part 1)
02 April 2013
and
(Part 2)
23 October 2013
and
(Part 3)
03 March 2014
(Part 5)
22 November 2013
and
(Part 6)
05 May 2014
and
Your Children Don't Belong to You!
09 April 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/04/your-children-dont-belong-to-you.html
and
Corporal Punishment in Schools!
29 January 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/01/corporal-punishment-in-schools.html
and
Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty!
(Part 1)
02 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/agenda-21-and-death-knell-of-liberty.html
and
(Part 2)
22 January 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/01/agenda-21-death-knell-of-liberty-part-2.html
and
Socialism is Not Disappearing!
15 November 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/11/socialism-is-not-disappearing.html
and
Should We Have Prayer in Schools?
06 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/should-we-have-prayer-in-schools.html
and
Don't Blame the Teachers! Blame the Parents!
18 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/dont-blame-teachers.html
and
Parents! What do You Know about Whole Child Education?
13 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/parents-what-do-you-know-about-whole.html
and
Sex Education in Ontario Elementary Schools is Going Too Far!!
24 June 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/06/sex-education-in-ontario-elementary.html
and
Teaching Propaganda or American History?
25 April 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/04/teaching-propaganda-or-american-history.html
and
What Happened to Education?
30 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/what-happened-to-education.html
and
Homeschooling - What About It?
18 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/homeschooling-what-about-it.html
and
Who Writes History?
23 July 2007
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2007/07/what-about-history.html
*******

When the Absurd Becomes Reality! (Part 11)

$
0
0
*******
*******
Who Voted For That?
Just don't take the red pill. Whatever you do, don't take the red pill
By Dr. Robert R. Owens -- Bio and Archives 
January 29, 2016
Who voted for an immigration policy whose purpose is to change the racial, ethnic and cultural make-up of the United States? That is exactly what the Kennedy Immigration Bill of 1965 was designed to do and just what it has done.
Who voted for open borders and constant calls for amnesty for anyone who can drag themselves across the border? Has anyone else noticed that the estimate of how many illegals are in the United States has been stuck at 11 million for at least the last 11 years?
Who voted for anchor babies automatically gaining citizenship? This has led to birth tourism wherein pregnant women from all over the world fly in, have their babies, go home, and then Uncle Sugar is on the hook for these babies the rest of their lives. This entire fraudulent practice is based on a blatant misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. The correct interpretation based on original intent is readily available for anyone who can click a mouse.
Contrary to the common knowledge of everyone successfully programed by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media and the public indoctrination centers once known as schools anchor babies are not found anywhere in the constitution. In fact they didn’t even exist until 1982 when Justice Brennan slipped them into the footnote of a Supreme Court decision. Notice I didn’t say into a Supreme Court decision. It is found only in a footnote.
And contrary to Bill O’Reilly and many other armchair lawyers this could be corrected without a constitutional amendment. All that is needed is a law which clarifies that Justice Brennan’s footnote does not carry the force of law. It’s kind of a no-brainer when you think about it.
Who voted for unlimited and unregulated abortion on demand? In 1973, the rogue Supreme Court out to remake America by fiat declared in Roe v. wade that all state laws regulating abortion were unconstitutional. Since that red letter day the blood of more than 57 million babies stains the hands of America. Our babies have been dismembered in the womb and had their skulls pierced with scissors as they were being born. Their bodies have been tossed like garbage into landfills, flushed down toilets, and sold for their organs.
Who voted for restricting the rights of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms? Over and over we hear about common sense gun laws. Every one of these proposals does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. They are criminals, so breaking the law is what they do. All of these proposals have just one result: they restrict the rights of law abiding citizens since they are the only ones who follow the laws.
When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution it was because the so-called Ant-Federalists refused to ratify the document without these first ten amendments. The statements of the Framers as enumerated in the Federalist Papers and the demands of the opposition as enumerated in the Anti-Federalist Papers makes it clear that the 2nd Amendmentwas meant to give the people the right to defend themselves against personal attack and against tyranny. Criminals love unarmed victims and tyrants love citizens who cannot resisttheirauthority.
Who voted for ObamaCare which destroyed the best healthcare system ever known to man and after six years we are told there are just as many people without insurance as there were before? Polls before its passage and since have consistently shown that the majority of the American people do not want this train wreck of a law. Yet despite our best efforts to make our opposition known this is shoved down our throats like a horse pill that chokes a patient to death before we find out it is really a placebo.
Who voted for our president to bow before despots and dictators? Never before in History has an American president bowed before a foreign leader or anyone else. Until the revolutionary presidency of Barack Obama it would have been considered shameful. No one ever imagined it would happen. Under the man determined to take America down a peg or two it hasn’t happened, once or twice or even three times. On eight separate occasions our president has bowed before foreigners not only showing his respect for them but also showing his contempt for us.
Who voted for the Fed to pump trillions of fiat money into Dodd-Frank banks too big to fail? Since the crash of 2008 the Federal Reserve has been printing money at an unprecedented rate. Where has all this monopoly money gone? To the banks too big to fail, of course, through the happy-go-lucky-how-can-this-ever-fail money machine known as Quantitative Easing. What a friendly sounding name for a galloping printing press. All this supposed money is adding to the national debt and still no inflation. I think someone should tell the geniuses at the Fed what inflation is: more money chasing the same number of goods. No inflation means no raises for anyone except the plutocrats who run the crony capitalist institutions and the government people who print the money. No inflation, right. Has anyone been to the grocery store recently?
Who voted for an economy that instead of recovering has plateaued at a new normal with over 90 million able bodied people out of the work force, only slightly more than 122 million working, and a government that calls this full employment? The government’s own statistics show that approximately 62% of the workforce is working. To me that looks like 36% aren’t working. Full employment is generally accepted as meaning, “The condition in which virtually all who are able and willing to work are employed.” Does anyone see a problem with this picture?
Who voted for any of this?
Oh, wait a minute. Anyone who has voted for a Democrat in the last fifty years voted for all of this.
To paraphrase Sam Cooke:
Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the French I took
Don’t know much about geography
Don’t know much trigonometry
Don’t know much about algebra
Don’t know what a slide rule is for
But I do know that if Progressives can fool you
And I know that if Progressives could fool me, too
What a wonderful world this would be
Just don’t take the red pill. Whatever you do, don’t take the red pill. Take the blue one. You’ll feel much better as we slide into the dustbin of History.
*******
Hillary: Obama as Supreme Court Justice is ‘a great idea’
Elections have consequences
By Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives  
January 27, 2016
http://canadafreepress.com/article/78508?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=b9f3194d2e-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-b9f3194d2e-297723645
If you need another reason to vote for literally anyone but Hillary Clinton, here it is: She thinks it would be a “great idea” to make Barack Obama a Supreme Court Justice.  ...Or at least that’s what she says.
During an Iowa town hall, Clinton was asked about the possibility of letting Obama trash the Constitution for the rest of his life, because apparently 8 years just isn’t enough. According to Bloomberg, she responded as follows:
“I will certainly take that under advisement,” she said in Decorah, responding to a man’s recommendation. “I mean, he’s brilliant, he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor, so he’s got lots of credentials.”
She acknowledged that there might be a few obstacles in the way, first and foremost whether Obama would want the job after eight years in the White House. “He may have a few other things to do,” she said, “but I’ll tell you, that’s a great idea.”
There are a couple of things we need to remember about this.
The first is that Hillary is completely untrustworthy. If you believe that she genuinely admires, likes, and supports Barack Obama, I have some beautiful rolling land in the center of the Okefenokee swamp I’d like to sell you. There is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas, and it’s highly doubtful that Hillary will want anything to do with her former boss once he leaves office.
Hillary’s just tying herself to the Obama legacy (such as it is) in an effort to stop her liberal base from defecting to Bernie.
The second, and more important, point is that the next President will probably get - at least - two chances to appoint someone to the Supreme Court bench. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are both rocketing towards retirement and the vacancies they leave will almost certainly be the purview of the next President.
If that President is Hillary Clinton, it doesn’t really matter who she appoints. You can bet your last two nickels that her selection will view the Constitution with exactly the same disdain as Obama. In fact, if she can find an uber-liberal candidate who’s “sellable” enough, you should presume she’ll pick someone even worse than our current Commander in Chief.
The bottom line is: If you like your rights, stopping Mrs. Clinton is imperative.
Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.
*******
Why Do They Lie to Us Over and Over?
The major media has morphed from a watchdog to a lapdog barking on cue that everything is all right, there's nothing to see here, move along
By Dr. Robert R. Owens -- Bio and Archives 
January 22, 2016
http://canadafreepress.com/article/78361?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=348aab53ec-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-348aab53ec-297723645
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Progressives and the Big Lie(s):
When faced with the highest levels of unemployment in American History why does the government trumpet a falling unemployment rate? In the face of overwhelming evidence of ineptness at best in Benghazi why do our hacks and their flacks insult us with answers like, “Dude this was two years ago!” With the obvious politicization of the IRS why does the president tell us there isn’t even a smidgen of corruption in the IRS while professional bureaucrats who really run this country take the 5th, stonewall, and lie?
The Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media regales us with oxymoronic statements such as, “Despite the unemployment rate plummeting, more than 92 million Americans remain out of the labor force.” The Great Recession grinds on in the lives of everyday working people while our leaders talk about a recovery that only benefits them and their cronies.If you live in Washington DC or the surrounding area you are probably doing fine, for the rest of us in fly-over country, not so much.
The shoes in the Benghazi scandal continue to drop finally reaching the point where even go-along-to-get-along John Boehner finally agreed to allow the House to vote on the establishment of a select Committee so that this long simmering embarrassment could hopefully come to the truth. Then again, as our once and future Queen said, “What difference at this point does it make?”
A funny thing happened on his way to becoming the Speaker of the House after Boehner fell on his sword for the Progressive agenda House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the entire Benghazi investigation was designed only to hurt Hillary’s poll numbers. He blew his chance for the big seat but at least he completely discredited the committee which also advanced the Progressive agenda.
Remember the IRS scandal. The one that was swept under the carpet?
Article 2 section 1 of the Articles of Impeachment filed against President Nixon was about the abuse of power. It stated, “He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
Now 40 years later, under the Obama regime, the taxman cometh. When massive harassment of conservative groups by the IRS came to light as reported in The Daily Caller (DC) we were told:
Progressives were targeted, too
For months, Democrats and the media relied on the talking point that progressive groups also ended up on an IRS “Be on the Lookout” list while the agency was auditing and seizing information from conservative groups. But as The DC reported, IRS agents testified before the House oversight committee that the IRS scrutinized ACORN groups because it thought they were old groups applying as new ones; the group Emerge America was scrutinized for potential “improper private benefit;” and no evidence exists to prove that the IRS targeted any Occupy Wall Street group.
“Only seven applications in the IRS backlog contained the word ‘progressive,’ all of which were then approved by the IRS… [T]here is simply no evidence that any liberal or progressive group received enhanced scrutiny because its application reflected the organization’s political views,” according to an oversight committee staff report.
No White House involvement
“Not necessarily the White House” was the phrase that some Democratic “strategist” used when attacking one of our Daily Caller stories on cable television last year. He meant that while the IRS may have been corrupt to its very Washington core, President Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett have not yet been photographed sifting through tea party applications at a desk in the Lincoln Bedroom.
But we do know, however, courtesy of The Daily Caller’s reporting, that Lerner exchanged confidential taxpayer information on conservative groups with White House officials including White House health-policy adviser EllenMontz and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Jeanne Lambrew, who just happened to be the most powerful official on Obamacare implementation within the White House.
A couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati
Ah, yes. The “WKRP in Cincinnati” Theory of 2013. You know the episode where the wacky characters in the Cincinnati office make a little “whoops” and take it upon themselves to target conservatives nationwide? A team of reporters from The New York Times, including dreamboat Nicholas Confessore, even went to bat for the administration on this theory last year, publishing a disgraceful article about Ohio-based “confusion” and “staff troubles” among “Low-level employees in what many in the I.R.S. consider a backwater.”
But at least five different offices ranging from Chicago to Laguna Niguel, CA. were engaging in this kind of “confusion,” and the whole excuse got torn down like Riverside Stadium. A Cincinatti-based IRS official said thatWashington “was basically throwing us under the bus.” The bus to the world-renowned American Sign Museum.
Lerner can still cite the Fifth Amendment
That’s what her lawyer, Bill Taylor, wrote in a recent letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, calling a possible contempt vote “un-American.” But it’s just not true. Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege when she made a statement attesting to her innocence at a May 2013 oversight hearing. The oversight committee and U.S. House counsel both determined as much.
It could take years for the IRS to get all of Lerner’s emails
That’s what new IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who has been threatened with contempt himself, told oversight investigators. But the independent group Judicial Watch managed to obtain emails showing Lerner coordinating with the Department of Justice to potentially prosecute conservative activists. It only took Judicial Watch one Freedom of Information Act request to get that stuff. “Now I see why the IRS is scared to give up the rest of Lois Lerner’s emails,” said oversight member Rep. Jim Jordan.When they were found and they did show not only that the conservative groups were targeted but also that the IRS tried to cover it up, nothing happened except Louis Lerner continues to receive her massive pension of over $100,000 per year plus we have learned that she also earned Up to $129,000 in bonuses for her exemplary work.
Don’t worry, federal government investigators are on top of things
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice tapped an Obama political donor to head its investigation. FBI investigators went months without contacting the conservative groups that were victimized by the IRS targeting, and leaked to the press that no criminal charges would be filed in relation to the case before much of the relevant information we currently have even came out.
The Obama administration’s investigation of the scandal was such a joke that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte accused Obama and Holder of “undermining” investigators on multiple occasions, and joined with other House GOP leaders in calling for a special counsel to prosecute the case.
But if the investigation was a joke, here’s the punchline: The Justice Department has been the only investigative body to ask Lois Lerner any questions, at an off-the-record “Q+A” that was not under oath.
Only tea party groups were targeted
Good for the IRS for taking a firm stand against all those wacky tea party groups popping up out in Palookaville trying to exercise their little “First Amendment rights.” Bunch of Koch-funded rednecks.
But oh wait: The IRS also audited the Leadership Institute, founded by Morton C. Blackwell, which has been one of the Washington area’s foremost conservative activist training organizations since 1979, even demanding personal information about the institute’s college-aged interns. Oh yeah, and the IRS also told a pro-life group “you can’t force your religion” and tried to stop pro-life activists from picketing Planned Parenthood clinics.
The targeting is over now
Sure it is. Just ask Ron Paul and his group Campaign for Liberty’s donors about that.
Now the latest update, despite a court order to the contrary the IRS has deleted hard drives that held critical evidence in the agency’s on-going scandals.
And now the BIG LIE continues in the Benghazi scandal. The movie ‘13 Hours’ has come out. It is amazing, and every American should see it. Written by and based upon the experiences of three of the surviving heroes this movie tells the story that has been hidden from us for so long. In the aftermath of the release the families of the victims have once again come forward and said that Hillary told them at the coffin ceremony that a video was the cause of the attack. She also said that they would arrest the maker of the video. Subsequently some of Hillary’s emails, which were only obtained through a Freedom of Information request, a law suit and a judge’s order show that she knew this to be a lie at the time she used it to cover herself and the President at the time. She has admitted this is true at the discredited Benghazi hearings.
The families are saying Hillary lied. Hillary is now saying that she never blamed the video and in essence that the families are lying. Every news outlet is playing this like a “He said she said” debate. They are interviewing the families. Of course Hillary avoids interviews from anyone except her pet networks and their softball questions.
Here is my big problem with the big lie. One click of the mouse and you can pull up the YouTube video of Hillary at the coffin ceremony blaming the video. The maker of the video was arrested and spend time in jail. The one who lied to the families, lied to the nation, isn’t in jail, isn’t under a cloud of shame. No, they are now busy with the help of the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media and their cable henchmen lying her way to the White House
Why do they lie to us over and over?
The easy answer is because they can. The major media has morphed from a watchdog to a lapdog, barking on cue that everything is all right, there’s nothing to see here, move along.
The best government money can buy has shown us that they can safely operate on the assumption that American voters choose their leaders based on the philosophy, “I know he’s a liar but I like what he says.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ drrobertowens.com
© 2013 Robert R. Owens
Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
*******
Also See:
When the Absurd Becomes Reality!

(Part 1)
23 March 2009
and
(Part 2)
07 August 2009
and
(Part 3)
21 February 2011
and
(Part 4)
21 November 2011
and
(Part 5)
24 December 2011
and
(Part 6)
13 April 2012
and
(Part 7)
19 June 2013
and
(Part 8)
21 March 2014
(Part 10)
12 November 2015
and
Science Fiction or Future Reality?
01 November 2008
and
What is Truth? - Is Everything Relative? Does the End Justify the Means?
28 August 2009
and
Are You Reality Denied?
25 March 2011
and
"Wrongful Birth" Insanity!
14 November 2011
and
It's Everywhere: Be Wary of Myths, Fabricated Lies, and Distorted Data!
29 August 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/08/its-everywhere-be-wary-of-myths.html
*******

Who is This Guy in the Oval Office? (Part 24)

$
0
0

*******
*******
There Is a Cancer Growing in America
Cancer of ignorance and lack of leadership, and it is growing into a malignancy
By Ray DiLorenzo -- Bio and Archives
January 29, 2016
There is a cancer growing in the United States.  It is the cancer of ignorance and lack of leadership, and it is growing into a malignancy.  Too many of us, both in and out of public service, cannot or will not recognize what is threatening our very existence and cannot decide elemental questions like:  Is capitalism better than socialism?
When George Bush (43) left office, the Middle East was stable and al Qaeda was on the run.  Now Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon with the means to finish the project and further fund terrorism throughout the world…and we’re helping to pay for it!  AL Qaeda has been allowed to morph and combine with other groups to form ISIS, creating havoc over the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and soon, to a greater degree, the United States.
Syria, Iraq and Libya have experienced hundreds of thousands of dead including a veritable Christian holocaust with millions of refugees pouring into Europe and the United States; many of them creating a hardship for the host country.
Why?  Because our lack of leadership has been nothing less than stunning.  Our president and his administration, with much Democrat support, refuse to see the world as it is.
Even Bill Maher, the liberal idealist, challenged Charlie Rose (appropriate name for the colored glasses that he wears), who said that Christians are much like Muslims in their intolerance.  “No, that’s not true, not true.  Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it…To tell me that Islam is just like other religions is naive and just plain wrong.”
Our ignorance is equally devastating in its depth of illiteracy as to what socialism entails.  Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a serious challenge for the Democrat presidential nomination and almost half of the Democrat Party believes socialism is either good or are open to it.
Do our schools still teach history and economics?  Do they teach that the only difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is voted in while communism is forced in?  And if they still do teach economics, are they teaching that waiting in line for hours for a pair of shoes (if any are available) is better than a trip to the mall?
Many voters, especially young people are supporting Bernie Sanders.  That tells me that there is a tremendous knowledge gap created by an education system that is antithetical to our very system of government and our Judeo-Christian heritage.  And it has bled profusely into our culture, government, entertainment and institutions.
The disease did not happen overnight.  It has been a long time coming and it has been allowed to grow unrestrained.
The future always belongs to those who are willing to see over the next hill, accept it for what it is and deal with it.  The cancer is growing and it will, unless checked, kill the host.
Ray DiLorenzo is a career pilot having retired after 22 years as a contract fire pilot with the California Department of Forestry (Cal-Fire).  He is presently affiliated with Stand Up America founded by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret)
*******
*******
Obama’s War on Car Dealers
The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.
By Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives 
January 27, 2016
Writing at Net Right Daily, Dustin Howard chronicles an attack by the Obama Administration on car dealers:
“Peter Roff, who writes for U.S. News and World Report, has recently documented how the Obama Administration’s “watchdogs” are waging war on the car dealers of America, trying to destroy their business model. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) organized an event last week that was “designed to show the franchise model on which the industry operates is anti-competitive and results in consumers paying higher prices for new cars than they ought,” wrote Roff.
As Roff noted, the CFPB is alleging that dealerships are employing discriminatory practices to harm minority car buyers. He also noted that they have a “specious” empirical basis to do so.  He instead points to research that overtly contradict the notion that competition is being restricted by franchisees to harm Obaconsumers. Why then do they press on?
Taken with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) flawed modeling to assume that auto dealerships are discriminating against minority consumers, it seems that a full scale assault is underway.
This begs the question, why would they do this and who stands to gain?
Roff came short of saying that the Obama administration is clearing the way for Tesla, who has enjoyed a cozy relationship with the administration. Tesla has obstacles that prevent them from expanding, particularly that they want to have an Apple Store-like, manufacturer to consumer model that is prohibited in many states. Tesla seems to be leveraging their political connections to ameliorate their growing pains, to the point of using them as a weapon against their competition.”
Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society
And indeed Dustin is correct; the Obama Administration hates the internal combustion engine and seeks its overthrow in our society. Ostensibly the Administration wants to promote “green” automobiles, which means electric cars (which take more energy and generate more greenhouse gases than a regular old-fashioned gas burner) but in the end what they seek is to control the movement of the public. Electric cars, with their limited range, are ideal to promoting restrictions on the movement of the public. That movement is an inalienable right, as I have argued.
Another point to ponder here; what Obama is doing to the auto industry is exactly what his friends in Congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Housing Bubble was generated by government imposed “fairness” to promote minority home ownership. The government, in it’s boundless wisdom, decided that banks should be forced to make loans to people with sub-par credit, and do so in neighborhoods that did not command top dollar. The increase in risk was passed along to investors via bundling of loans and the monetizing of the mortgage industry. The result was a wild west where people without jobs were borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars and living well beyond their means. The result was the correction of 2008 which saw America drop into the worst economic period since the Great Depression. All of this was caused by government interference in an industry that thought to manipulate.
There is no difference here, except that cars are a little cheaper and are mobile. It’s a lot harder to repossess a vehicle than to foreclose on a home.
This will, of course, drive the prices of automobiles way up, just as it did the price of housing prior to the crash,. That is, in my opinion, the4 whole point; the Feds want to force people out of cars and into Uber or bicycles. It is a part of Agenda 21/30, to get America to eschew the automobile and thus become a sedentary people, one that is easier to control and monitor.
Tom DeWeese has an excellent essay about Agenda 21.
As Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild point out in an article on Agenda 21 at American Thinker:
 “Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, “Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government’s goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left.”
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a “smart code” zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums. “
It also has the added benefit of allowing the Federal Government to overturn redistricting in Republican-controlled states by simply colonizing red districts with “blue” people.
And one way to guarantee that the public remain in these high density urban centers is to restrict the means of transportation. That is behind the drive to develop driverless cars that Google - a good friend of Agenda 21 - has undertaken.
Here is an example:
“George Gilhooley, an engineer with consulting firm HNTB, says the effort to attain better, more efficient usage of highways is helping drive the adoption of these new technologies. Apart from optimizing road use, the main issue is one of safety. He feels that the sooner traffic managers can respond to a given situation – and get traffic moving again – the better.
According to RITA, because of the variety of vehicle and infrastructure safety systems installed or planned, the focus must be on consistent and widely applicable standards and protocols. There are two forms of connected vehicles: those which can communicate with other vehicles and those that communicate with the infrastructure itself.”
In either case, the driverless car is under the watchful eye of the authorities - and likely under their control as well. And this article in The Guardian gives us a glimpse into the WHY of driverless cars:
“Point-to-point systems such as bike-sharing programmes allow users to pick-up and drop-off vehicles at different locations. If properly designed these schemes can be complementary to public transport. Users can take a bus or subway train and then transfer to a shared bicycle for the last mile of their trip.
But bikes tend to cluster at popular locations at certain times of the day, while other locations may be devoid of available vehicles. Shared bike programmes solve this problem by redistributing bikes manually via truck. This is very costly and operators can never keep up with the demand for redistribution. Studies point to the significant impact bike redistribution has on total operational costs in running a shared bike programme. Clearly using trucks to move cars is hardly a reasonable proposition.
But with autonomous vehicles, we can solve this problem and release the power of the collaborative consumption economy. Imagine the following scenario: a customer uses a smartphone app to request an autonomous shared vehicle, it arrives at your door and drops you to your destination, and the vehicle then either moves on and picks up another customer or parks itself and recharges.”
So, if the price of cars rises too high we shall go to “shared vehicles”. Uber is a start on that, and Uber-like programs will increase over time. As cars become too expensive (and my brother was complaining that he had to buy a five-year-old vehicle when he has worked for Ford for 20 years!) and traffic more onerous - thanks to bicycle lanes and skinnier streets, two gifts of Agenda 21’s planning - the “shared vehicles” will become more and more attractive. And driverless cars will become more and more of a necessity. Of course, those driverless cars will have restricted travel areas.
With the development of hydraulic fracturing we have seen a worldwide collapse of the price of oil, ruining the careful planning of the internationalists and the environmental lobby.  It now becomes difficult to restrict the gasoline engine with cheap oil and no global warming, and so the Administration must act tan a different level. Car sales and roads are the next battlefront
The whole point is to ultimately pen Americans in like cattle. Making cars too expensive and difficult to buy is a great start in implementing this.
Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Review and has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu Timothy can be reached at: tim@timothybirdnow.com
 

*******
Also See:
Who is This Guy in the Oval Office?
(Part 1)
16 February 2009
and
(Part 2)
22 April 2009
and
(Part 3)
16 June 2009
and
(Part 4)
03 August 2009
and
(Part 5)
03 January 2010
and
(Part 6)
20 May 2010
and
(Part 7)
21 November 2010
and
(Part 8)
14 February 2011
and
(Part 9)
03 August 2011
and
(Part 10)
10 October 2011
and
(Part 11)
11 December 2011
and
(Part 12)
18 April 2012
and
(Part 13)
01 July 2012
and
(Part 14)
25 October 2012
and
(Part 15)
14 December 2012
and
(Part 16)
22 May 2013
and
(Part 17)
27 July 2013
and
(Part 18)
07 October 2013
and
(Part 20)
10 February 2014
and
(Part 21)
03 June 2014
and
(Part 22)
22 December 2014
and
(Part 23)
23 October 2015
and
Who will be the Next First Lady?
01 July 2008
*******

What Happens in Iowa, Stays in Iowa!

$
0
0
*******
*******
Iowa Election Manipulation
We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters
By  Mark Andrew Dwyer -- Bio and Archives 
February 7, 2016
If you lived in Soviet Union and tried to run for the Supreme Soviet (an elective body with powers similar to those of the U.S. Congress) with a political program different from the one advertised by the Soviet ruling clique, you would have everybody against you: the establishment, the press (and its propaganda), the political organizations, and for obvious reasons. But suppose you managed to politically survive until elections, and all your name ended up on the ballot. Obviously, you would lose, badly, on election day. But it would take extreme naiveté to conclude that the citizens of the Soviet Union rejected you and your program. The Soviet “elections” system was controlled by the ruling clique to assure the continuity of their monopoly on power.
No one at his right mind in free world lent any credibility to Soviet “elections” that were often the subject of ridicule and jokes. But how about the system that we have in the U.S.? Are the results of elections here a true expression of the will of the People? Or are they - at least in part - the result of fraud, voter deception, and other manipulations of that sort? Our election system used to enjoy a public trust, but with election fraud becoming more and more rampant and the tools of persuasion becoming more and more effective, the presumption of fairness of election results is fading quickly.
Why should we assume that the election process, the most details of which are unknown to most of the People, controlled by often shady groups and individuals, is not tainted? If the process was sound and unbiased, we would not have those cases of stuffing of the ballot boxes, recounts that always favor one political wing, dead people voting, homeless being dragged to the voting polls, just to name a few? And why pre-election polls are often so dramatically different from the elections results? Which of those, if any, is a more accurate measurement of the will of the People?
If the system is so good then why is it so bad?
There is something definitely fishy with Iowa recent election results. It appears that they were caused by orchestrated manipulation and were not indicative of the level of support that Trump, Cruz, and Rubio actually enjoyed. There is no good reason to believe that those results were a manifestation of the Iowa electorate, and that the numerous polls showing Trump well ahead of his competitors were wrong.
A conclusion that Trump came second because of his narrower base than Cruz’s base would require an assumption that those who voted in the Republican primary in Iowa constituted a fair (unbiased) sample of all registered GOP voters in that state. Although such a fairness is theoretically possible, based what is publicly known, it is a highly unlikely scenario.
The most likely scenario is over-representation of Cruz voters and Rubio voters in the Iowa Republican election paired with persuading a large number of undecided voters to vote on those two. Marketing giants (let them remain nameless here) didn’t even try to hide that they made the most advanced marketing software available to their preferred candidates, and we have seen the results of the successful political marketing of Cruz and Rubio last Monday. However legal it might be at this moment, is a clear case of free election manipulation that produce winners who do not have support of the plurality of (Republican, in this case) voters. And the fact that the result of Iowa Caucus were so dramatically different than the results of most of the polls in recent weeks should be enough to doubt in actual (as opposed to nominal) fairness of the election.
The likelihood that the above scenario was the one that took place in Iowa and that it changed substantially the results of the election is further increased by the fact that the turnout among Iowa Republican voters was unusually high. It strongly suggests that the following three actions took place:
1.The participation of Rubio voters was increased with profiling software that allowed his campaign to reliably target his supporters and shower them with calls to go out and vote. It is a particularly likely scenario under the circumstances of mega-donors’ large contributions to Rubio in order to eliminate Trump for competition.
2.A similar scenario, although with slightly lesser probability, applies to Cruz.
3.But the most likely source of Cruz and Rubio was the precise identification of undecided but persuadable voters and contacting them directly to vote for either of the above two. This kind of manipulation is the core strategy in advanced marketing today, and its effectiveness is nothing short of marvelous.
Add to all the above 24/7 anti-Trump campaign of virtually all “mainstream” media and you will see how it could happen that indisputable front-runner Trump ended up with roughly the same number of votes as Cruz and Rubio did.
We are quickly approaching times when the elections are going to be decided by the power of marketing software and the size and correctness of databases with political profiles of prospective voters. Those candidates who have better software and data will likely defeat those who don’t, regardless of who they are and what they stand for. And our repeated requests to give us the government that follows the will of the American People in its policies and actions are going to end up in a dustbin of history.
Mr. Dwyer has been a continuing contributor to the Federal Observer. Mark Andrew Dwyer’s commentaries (updated frequently) can be found here. Send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com.
*******
George and Barbara not enough to save Jeb’s campaign
This response is in keeping with Bush’s political correctness and his moderate political philosophy, regardless of his claims to be a conservative
By  Jeff Crouere -- Bio and Archives
February 6, 2016
The results from Iowa were certainly interesting. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders virtually tied, giving both campaigns some momentum going into New Hampshire. Whereas, the laughable, struggling Martin O’Malley finally decided to end his ridiculous campaign after getting less than 1% of the vote in Iowa.
Also, on the Republican side, ending campaigns were Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who hoped to recapture the magic of 2008 and pull off a miracle upset in Iowa. It did not happen for Huckabee, Santorum or Paul and at least they had the good sense to quit. The same can’t be said for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who finished a pathetic sixth place among Republican voters, yet vowed to continue the fight in New Hampshire and beyond.
Bush’s anemic level of support was the best result of the Iowa election. It places his campaign on life support going to New Hampshire and makes his nomination very unlikely. Of course, this is all bad news for the Democrats who were looking to coast to victory in November if the Republicans nominated another Bush.
With the top three Republican candidates in Iowa being Cruz, Trump and Rubio, voters sent an unmistakable message to the GOP establishment that it is time for new leadership. It is also the only possible way for Republicans to have a chance of recapturing the White House in November.
How times have changed! Last year, Bush was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. He is part of the Bush dynasty as his father and brother served as President, so he had a tremendous built-in advantage. He enjoyed easy access to the wealthy, establishment donors who control the Republican Party. These power brokers flooded his campaign with massive donations, allowing Bush to establish the early lead in the polls and in the important category of fundraising.
It soon evaporated as Bush tangled with Donald Trump in the debates and was labeled both stiff and “low energy.” Throughout his campaign, Bush has failed to connect with Republican voters looking for action on the important issues of the economy, illegal immigration and the fight against ISIS.
The end result was his uninspiring performance in Iowa, where he finished in sixth place with only 2.8% of the vote. In fact, Bush wasted almost $15 million in Iowa to garner just 5,165 votes, spending as astronomical $2,884 per Iowa vote.
His horrible showing reflects the desire of Republican voters to move past the Bush family and find new leadership in the party. Voters must realize that Jeb Bush is a creature of the much despised Republican establishment and, if elected, would not do anything to deal with the real crisis facing our nation today.
Despite the Iowa setback, the Bush campaign is making a final push in New Hampshire, and, especially, in South Carolina. Barbara Bush, Jeb’s mother, who previously was not thrilled about another one of her sons running for President, campaigned for Jeb in New Hampshire this week. She said Jeb was the “nicest, wisest, most caring, loyal, disciplined” candidate in the race. Of course, she acted like any supportive mother and praised her son, but it remains to be seen whether these words of affection will translate into votes for Jeb.
In South Carolina Right to Rise, a Super PAC supporting Jeb, started airing commercials featuring his brother, former President George W. Bush. The commercial concludes with George W. Bush saying, “Experience and judgment count in the Oval Office. Jeb Bush is a leader who will keep our country safe.”
With both his mother and brother now fully on board and engaged, Jeb Bush is literally putting all of this political cards on the table. This is his final shot to make a move in the race. While the national polls continue to show Bush in the middle of the pack, the in-fighting among the top three candidates, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, may provide an opportunity for Bush to gain ground in the days ahead.
The dilemma of his candidacy is that he is not the type of conservative, reform oriented, leader the GOP or the country needs after eight years of Obama. It is time for a political revolution with courageous leadership, but Jeb Bush is too much of an establishment politician. For example, this week, Bush praised the President’s visit to the Baltimore mosque, claiming that it was “more than appropriate.” Of course, the difficulty with the visit is that the former imam of the mosque was a member of an Islamic organization tied to terrorism. He also worked for a relief organization that had radical associations. Other presidential candidates blasted Obama’s visit, but Bush refused to utter a negative word.
This response is in keeping with Bush’s political correctness and his moderate political philosophy, regardless of his claims to be a conservative. In these troubled times, what America needs is a strong conservative who will courageously move our country in a new direction. Electing Bush will basically mean more of the same and that, in a nutshell, is the problem with his candidacy.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA.  He is the host of a Louisiana-based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday, and 10:00 p.m. Sunday on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station; and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at Ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com
 *******
*******
Ted Cruz Wins Iowa - What It Means
By Chuck Baldwin
February 4, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
A Ted Cruz victory in Iowa was not surprising. Not at all. Typically, the Republican presidential candidate that can "Out Christian" the rest of the field wins in Iowa. And Cruz is the best at doing that since G.W. Bush that I’ve seen. But unlike Bush, Cruz will NOT be the Republican nominee. Count on it. And I, for one, am glad he won’t be.
The Cruz victory has got to be seen as a slap in the face for Liberty University’s Jerry Falwell, Jr., who personally campaigned in Iowa for Donald Trump. As much as I like Jerry, Jr., he is not his dad and will never be able to galvanize Christian conservatives like Jerry, Sr., did. The once powerful Religious Right passed with Jerry Falwell, Sr.
Faithful readers of this column know that I have already expressed my feelings that Cruz cannot be trusted to be faithful to the Constitution--especially in matters that pertain to the Warfare State and the Police State. His ties to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Goldman Sachs cannot be taken lightly. Birds of a feather still flock together. His staff is littered with New World Order fellow travelers. You are reading one Christian writer who would FAR rather vote for an unbeliever that will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States than vote for a believer who will NOT preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And there is nothing about Ted Cruz that convinces me he would be faithful to the Constitution--his Christian rhetoric notwithstanding.
Plus, of all of the GOP presidential candidates, Ted Cruz is probably the deepest in the pocket of the Israeli lobby--not that the rest of them aren't also. However, I still maintain that Rand Paul is the LEAST obligated to the Israeli lobby of all of them. (Rand Paul also demonstrates more fidelity to the Constitution than the rest of the field put together. And now that Rand has pulled out of the race, there really isn’t a constitutionally literate contender left.) Unlike many of my Christian brethren, I am convinced that the Zionists in Israel and America are a major destructive force to liberty and a direct threat to the Biblical, Natural Law principles upon which the United States was founded. The more allegiance a U.S. politician has to Zionism, the more harmful he or she is to America. Put Ted Cruz at the top of the list.
Obviously, this primary season has just begun, and an Iowa victory portends very little for things to come. This could wind up being a very interesting and unusual election season. Let your mind ruminate over some of these possible scenarios:
1. The GOP has a brokered convention, and establishment insiders pick Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.
This is a distinct possibility. The establishment is going all out to defeat Donald Trump, but his momentum is significant. It is very feasible that no candidate will have mustered the necessary delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. If that happens, you can be sure that the establishment knows how to manipulate the convention to ensure that an insider wins. The two candidates who fit that bill the best are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Rush Limbaugh is revealing his establishment loyalties by saying (with a straight face even) that Rubio is NOT an establishment candidate. But he is.
If this scenario becomes reality, a host of the Trump/Cruz/Carson/Paul supporters would abandon the GOP in November like rats off of the proverbial sinking ship. Then again, the GOP establishment would rather burn the house down than let a principled conservative win, as they are much more closely aligned with liberal Democrats than they are conservative Republicans.
2. Donald Trump sees the GOP establishment rigging primaries to defeat him and decides to run as an Independent.
I realize Trump signed a pledge that he would not bolt the GOP, but everyone knows that Trump is still holding that ace up his sleeve. Of course, many people know that Trump has had a long-standing personal friendship with the Clintons, and they fear he is playing the system to ensure a Hillary victory. That’s speculation, of course. But given that Trump talks and acts “from the hip” (assuming he is NOT a Hillary mole), his loyalty to his pledge will surely be tested, as the GOP establishment will do everything it can do to stack the deck against him. As the primaries (and passions) heat up, Trump is indeed the loose cannon in the field that could do just about anything--including jumping ship and running as an Independent.
3. Hillary is indicted or begins losing significantly to Bernie Sanders, and Democrats scramble to bring another insider (like Joe Biden) into the race.
Officials in Iowa are saying Hillary defeated party rival Bernie Sanders by the skin of her teeth. Plus, everyone is aware that some of those local victories were determined by coin tosses. The Democratic machine gave Hillary the win in Iowa and everyone knows it.
The Clinton camp has got to be worried after the embarrassing “victory” in Iowa. Sanders’ support is growing, while Clinton’s support is waning. The party machine is going to have to work around the clock to keep her afloat. But if Sanders begins to pull away from Hillary, her establishment buddies will turn on her like a pack of wolves on a bleeding lobo. Indictments are still hanging out there, and if it becomes obvious that Hillary isn’t winning primaries by landslide margins, watch the insiders throw her to the wolves and enlist another insider such as Joe Biden. Such an event would upset the applecart BIG TIME. And don’t forget that the former Democratic senator from Virginia and true war hero who served in the Reagan cabinet, Jim Webb, is waiting in the wings for just the right opportunity to enter the race. Wow! The possibilities are almost endless.
Obviously, Bernie Sanders is to the Democrats what Donald Trump is to the Republicans: a major thorn in the side.
4. Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg enters the race as an Independent--bringing with him $1 billion to spend. Or, Democrats tap Bloomberg if they abandon Clinton.
Bloomberg is another loose cannon that could shake things up this year. No doubt about that. But a billion dollars or no billion dollars, Bloomberg is mostly a one-string banjo. The only thing he is passionate about is disarming the American people. And while Clinton and Sanders might be just as bad on the Second Amendment, Bloomberg’s fanaticism on the issue would drive away virtually all of the gun owners in the country--including Democrats and Independents. The fact is, the mood of the country is more favorable toward the Second Amendment now than at any time in recent memory, which is why the Democratic Party will probably ignore Bloomberg.
But two independent billionaires in the general election (if it came to that)--one an ultra-liberal and the other a tough-talking “conservative”--would definitely shake things up. No doubt about it. Imagine (we are just ruminating here) a four-man race that includes the two major party candidates and two independent billionaires. And if it does become a four-man race between the above-mentioned people, can you imagine what would happen if Ron Paul suddenly decided to jump back in the race? Ron is still as sharp as a tack and more fit than many men half his age.
The last time anything remotely resembling the above happened was in 1860. And you know what happened the year after that.
And personally, I see regional separation (no, it would not have to be bloody--and I highly doubt that it would be) as a good thing, not as a bad thing. In fact, I think it is inevitable. It’s not a matter of “if.” It’s only a matter of “when.” But I digress.
Suffice it to say, folks, this is shaping up to be the most unusual and unpredictable election season in my lifetime--maybe since that election back in 1860. Hold on!
P.S. Recent events have graphically illustrated the need for the American citizenry to have an educated and informed understanding of the laws and protocols--as well as our rights and duties--when placed in contact with police officers. Sadly, most Americans are totally unprepared to deal with even “routine” traffic stops. Violent interactions between police officers and citizens are escalating. Sometimes the blame lies with law enforcement, and sometimes the blame lies with the citizen. Knowing how to respond to a police contact has never been more important.
My attorney son (a former prosecutor and now defense attorney) recently delivered an address to the folks at Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana, entitled “Police Contact: How To Respond.” I believe EVERY citizen in the country needs to watch this video. It might even save some lives. I encourage readers to order at least two: one for themselves and one for a friend.
To order the video presentation, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” go to:
Related Articles:
© 2016 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 9 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.
Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com
*******
Voting Machines and the Growth of Tyranny
Bollyn, Christopher
January 13, 2013
Yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson, “Preamble to a Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge,” 1778
In the immediate aftermath of the presidential election of 2012 citizens from all fifty states filed petitions to secede from the United States of America. This is a clear sign that many Americans think the federal government has become a tyranny. The word tyranny comes from the Greek word tyrant, which the ancient Greeks bestowed on good and bad rulers alike if their authority was not legitimate.  A tyrant is a person who has seized or assumed power wrongfully, as George W. Bush did in 2000. In this sense the words tyrant and usurper are exact synonyms.
The state petitions of secession, signed by more than 675,000 people in the days after the election, are indicative of the growing awareness among Americans that their government is not legitimate. What that means to all Americans and how we can rectify the problem and restore the integrity to our American republic is the purpose of this essay.
Once every two years Americans go to the polls to determine who will represent them in the U.S. House of Representatives, and for president once every four years. If the representation is to be real, the election must also be real, as Thomas Paine wrote in 1803. The fundamental problem with the U.S. government today is that it simply does not represent the American people because our elections are not real.
The presidential election of November 6, 2012, was as flawed as all U.S. elections have been since the citizenry was removed from the vote-counting process.   There were more than 70,000 complaints received on Election Day 2012. These complaints concerned vote fraud and problems with the electronic voting systems. There were, however, no formal complaints coming from the Romney camp, which is very odd.
Since the election, Romney’s son Tagg has come out saying that his father did not even want to be president, which suggests that Romney was only running because he was being paid to fill the space for the Republican candidate. This is the same tactic that was used to elect the unknown Obama to the U.S. Senate in 2004. After the Republican candidate withdrew due to a sex scandal, there was no candidate opposing Obama until Alan Keyes of Maryland was drafted by the GOP of Illinois, 86 days before the election. The fact that Keyes did not even live in Illinois did not bother anyone because Keyes was only running to fill the space and make it looklike a race. It now looks like Romney was doing the same thing to enable Obama to win re-election.
ROMNEY - THE STRAW CANDIDATE
“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life,” Tagg Romney told the Boston Globe. “If he could have found someone else to take his place... he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”
There was someone, however, who could have taken Romney’s place and who would have beaten Obama in the polls: Rep. Ron Paul. While Dr. Paul was very popular with the people across the nation, his anti-war positions and strict obedience to the U.S. Constitution are utterly anathema to the crimocracy that rules Washington, so they had to find a way to derail the Ron Paul Express to the White House. (Crimocracy is my word for the criminalochlocracy or “mob rule” that dominates our government.
To have the representation real, the election must be real;
and that where the election is a fiction,
the representation is a fiction also. 
Like will always produce like.
- Thomas Paine to the Citizens of the United States, January 29, 1803
The most fundamental problem with elections in the United States is that the tallying of the votes is done in secret by the private companies who run the electronic voting systems used across the country. These voting systems were designed to remove the citizen from the vote counting and authentication process and have made a complete sham of our elections and our democratic franchise.
Elections in the United States have become a grand deception in which the ruling powers and controlled media deceive the people into thinking that they actually choose the people who represent them. It is, however, not the American people who choose their leaders but the people who run the voting systems that count the votes and produce the tallies. In this way the U.S. government has become tyrannical because it is not legitimate and does not represent the American people.     
THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
In free governments, the rulers are the servants
and the people their superiors and sovereigns. - Benjamin Franklin
The most revolutionary aspect of our American system of government is that it is based on the concept of popular sovereignty, which means that the legitimacy of our government and law is based on the consent of the governed.   The American Revolution replaced the sovereignty of King George III with a collective sovereign – the popular sovereignty of the American people.
Americans give their consent when they exercise their democratic franchise by voting for their representatives every two years. As long as our votes are being counted in secret, however, by the privately owned companies that run our elections, our democratic franchise is meaningless.
If we are not counting our votes in our local polling stations we are not enfranchised in our government.   It’s that simple - and that serious. We are not actually participating in our government, which means that our social contract no longer exists.
The American concept of popular sovereignty was articulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a citizen of Geneva, who wrote in The Social Contract (1762) about the tendency of governments to degenerate into tyrannies:
The dissolution of the state can occur in one of two ways. First, when the ruling body no longer administers the state in accordance with the laws, and usurps sovereign authority. The change that then takes place deserves notice: it is that the state, not the government, contracts in size; I mean that the greater state is dissolved, and that within it another is created, consisting only of the members of the government, which in relation to the rest of the people is no more than its master and tyrant. So that, as soon as the government usurps sovereignty, the social pact is broken; and every ordinary citizen, restored by right to his natural liberty, is forced, but not obliged, to obey. - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762
This is evidently what has happened in the United States. Like ancient Athens, Americans are now living in a period in which they are ruled by tyrants. In the final analysis there is only one way to restore legitimate government in the United States: to return to democratic and transparent elections in which the citizens openly count the votes in every polling station across the nation.
The Constitution, after all, gives the legislatures of the individual states the power to decide how elections should be held in each state. Rather than secede from the union, the citizens in each state should turn their energies to demanding that their state pass legislation that bans voting machines entirely and restores the integrity to their elections by using paper ballots counted by the citizens in every polling place in the state.
It won’t be easy and there will be strong resistance to these efforts but this is what has to be done. There are many nations that could serve as models to help Americans restore democratic elections to their different states. The Swiss, for example, provide an excellent model and vote several times a year because they have a system of direct democracy in which the citizens are required to vote on legislation. This is probably due to the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said that the sovereign citizen could not be represented by anyone else. The Swiss, in fact, have a constitution that is based on the U.S. Constitution. The biggest difference between the Swiss and the American systems today is that the Swiss have not compromised their popular sovereignty and allowed private companies to count their votes. In Switzerland the votes are still cast using paper ballots that are counted by hand.
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.
- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Sources:
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Reality of Electronic Vote Fraud in America," January 26, 2012 http://www.bollyn.com/13598/
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Christopher Betts (trans.), Oxford University Press, 1994
 
 *******

Harper's Gone! Here's Justin!

$
0
0
*******
Odd Man Out: The Singular Political Stylings Of Justin Trudeau
Justin Trudeau: a man of the people— as long they are globalist billionaires, non-western diplomats, foreign politicians. For Canadian citizens—we are once again second-class citizens
By  Brad Salzberg -- Bio and Archives
February 24, 2016
Justin Trudeau is a man of the people. This in itself, cannot be questioned. What can be questioned, however, is whether or not our current Prime Minister is a man of the Canadian people.
Barely four months into a four-year term, Justin Trudeau has quickly established himself as the most atypical prime minister in Canadian history. Only Justin’s father, former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, comes close— although Trudeau Sr. was subtle enough to hide his lack of respect for general public opinion.
Justin Trudeau, however, has all the subtlety of a sand blaster. Oblivious to the desires of the general public—at least the ones born and raised upon Canadian soil— Trudeau the younger is brazen in his quest to redefine our society based upon little more than subjective feelings and personal moral standards.
Whether playing global ambassador to U.N. leader Ban-Ki Moon, international playboy to Melinda Gates, or speaker du-jour at Revival Of The Islamic Spirit conferences, Justin Trudeau is all about the other. Unfortunately for 35 million Canadians, they are not part of the “other”— they are part of Canada—the entity our pin-up Prime Minister appeared to care about previous to winning the last federal election.
Since that time, Justin and his Liberals have broken just about every major campaign promise made while running for office. Deficit projections, marijuana legislation, refugee quotas— you name it and the Liberals have broken it.
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what is on Justin’s mind at any given time. In fact, the only thing we can be sure of is what is not on his mind—namely, millions of “generational” Canadian-born citizens, who just happen to comprise the largest demographic segment within our nation. Even more curious is his complete disregard for our English and French Canadian heritage Thus far, Justin has yet to publicly reference or acknowledge the two founding peoples of our country. Perhaps he believes that if he ignores them long enough, they will go away.
Canadian citizens—we are once again second-class citizens to a first-class political opportunist by the name of Trudeau
This politically unprecedented dynamic is worth exploring. After all, who ever heard of a leader of a country who does not, at least from time to time, make positive reference to the history and heritage of his nation?
Not our Justin. He has no time for such trivialities. Indeed, Justin Trudeau is all about the global— and he has the spending habits prove it. An analysis of his first 100 days in office reveal that within this time period the Liberal government handed out $527 million dollars to Canadian interests, and a whopping $4.8 billion to foreign interests.
Who exactly is Justin Trudeau working for?
This brings forth several key questions— who exactly is Justin Trudeau working for?  Why is he giving away billions of our tax dollars to foreign nations, particularly of the non-democratic variety? Without doubt, most Canadians would agree that spending even a portion of these billions on domestic issues such as homelessness and child poverty is preferable to handing the money to foreign governments.
Has Justin heard of a recent report stating that 2250 homeless military veterans are currently walking our cold Canadian streets? Perhaps this tidbit was overlooked at the last Liberal Caucus meeting— the agenda being full up with top priority items such as free food, shelter, education and medical care to non-Canadian victims of the Syrian refugee crisis.
Considered from an historical perspective, one wonders what our political leaders of the past might have had to say about Justin’s unique style of decision-making. What, for example, would former Liberal prime minister and occultist MacKenzie King think about Trudeau’s international indulgences? In keeping with King’s interest in the world beyond, perhaps Canadians should pull out their collective ouija boards and try to find out. How about salt-of-the-earth Presbyterian PM John Diefenbaker?  Granted, we live in very different times, however does this validate Justin’s fervent dedication to all-things-global and a corresponding antipathy toward all that is traditionally Canadian? How about that grand old man of medicare,  former Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas? Yes, he may have founded universal medicare, but would he be on board with young Trudeau’s agenda to universalize our entire nation?
It is doubtful that any mature statesman, past or present, would admire the singular political stylings of Justin Trudeau. His political world is an anomaly- unique in all of Canadian history, and he has only been doing the job for four months.
On the day of October 19th, 2015, 6.9 million Canadians voted for the Liberal party, while 5.6 million voted for the Conservatives.  Yet, considering the brand of leadership thus far employed, it is easy to conclude that neither block of voters matter one iota to Justin Trudeau.
Within any western country other than one saturated with political correctness, this simply would not stand. In a healthy democratic nation, Justin Trudeau’s foreign lottery give-away program would be considered a colossal misappropriation of tax-payer funds. Yet, due to a comprehensive, decades-long program of enforced diversity, Canadians have developed an inability to see the national forest through the multicultural trees.
Yes, Justin Trudeau is a man of the people— as long as the people are globalist billionaires, non-western diplomats and foreign politicians. For the rest of us, however— namely, 35 million Canadian citizens—we are once again second-class citizens to a first-class political opportunist by the name of Trudeau.
Brad Salzberg is the founder of the Cultural Action Party of Canada.
*******

EXCLUSIVE: Liberals to build refugee camps on Canadian military bases  
Published on Feb 8, 2016
Ezra Levant reports this Rebel EXCLUSIVE: The Canadian military has been ordered by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals to draft plans to house more than 6,000 Muslim migrants on a long-term basis at military bases, according to documents obtained exclusively by The Rebel. MORE: http://www.therebel.media/breaking_li...
Trudeau’s Liberals MUST halt plans to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees
until they can guarantee the safety of the Canadian people.
SIGN THE PETITION at RefugeePause.ca
http://www.therebel.media/refugeepause
*******

POLL: Most Canadians agree, 25000 refugees is too many!  
Published on Nov 25, 2015
VISIT TheRebel.media for more fearless daily news, commentary and activism:http://www.TheRebel.media
http://www.Facebook.com/JoinTheRebel
*******
Ottawa won't say how many privately-sponsored Syrian refugees Canada will take
Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, January 28, 2016
OTTAWA -- Through pub nights, crowd funding websites, church suppers and craft bazaars, thousands of Canadians are currently trying to raise money to sponsor a Syrian refugee.
But it remains an open question just how many privately sponsored Syrian refugees Canada will end up accepting.
The ongoing Liberal refugee resettlement program aims to bring 25,000 Syrians to Canada by the end of next month, with original plans for about 10,000 of them to be privately sponsored.
But newly released government information shows that by the middle of last December, the government didn't even have that many private applications in hand.
Data tabled in the House of Commons in response to a question from the NDP shows that between January 1, 2015, and Dec. 15, 2015, applications were submitted to sponsor 8,214 people.
There was a spike of 551 applications last October -- one month after a photograph of a dead Syrian child shone a spotlight on the plight of the 4.6 million people seeking refugee from the violence in Syria.
The ensuing national debate on whether Canada was doing enough shone drew many Canadians to the government's private sponsorship program, among them Devon Klaas of Toronto.
Through Facebook, Klaas found seven others willing to band together to sponsor a refugee. They've raised the money and now they're working to find a family to support.
"It could be months from now, but it could also be next week," she said.
According to the data, processing times for privately sponsored applications averaged about 10 months last year.
While the Liberals say they remain committed to bringing in 25,000 government assisted refugees by the end of this year, they've not actually set a firm number for how many privately sponsored ones they will accept.
"The final number of privately sponsored Syrian refugees that will be resettled to Canada will depend in part on the number of private sponsors that express an interest in sponsoring, and on the 2016 Immigration Levels Plan that is expected to be tabled in the coming weeks," the Citizenship and Immigration department said.
NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan, who asked the government for the data released this week, said part of the issue is how the privately sponsored program is structured.
Rather than relying on UN lists or cases identified by private groups, the government should reach out to the Syrians already here, Kwan said.
"If the families could make applications here and say, 'This is the family, this is where they are,' and for that to be a match, that would assist the government to reach their numbers."
The Liberals did unveil a similar program this week that seeks to pair Syrians in Canada with sponsorship groups seeking people to help.
For groups like the one organized by Klaas, the waiting game is hard.
"It has been discouraging for us because we've been ready to go for a few months. We want to help," she said. "But we still meet, we're still constantly talking to each other."
Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne suggested this week that private sponsors could take in government-assisted refugees already in Canada, but still waiting for permanent housing, leaving them stuck in hotels.
As of Jan. 26, 14,003 Syrians have arrived in Canada since Nov. 4. Of that, 8,004 government assisted, 5,112 privately sponsored and 887 as part of a program that blends the two. A further 5,886 Syrians have been approved to come to Canada, but have not yet arrived.
*******


Rex Murphy: The "Unbearable" Lightness of Justin Trudeau
Published on Nov 15, 2013
Rex ponders why Liberal leader Justin Trudeau earns so much attention. Is it because he radiates inspired mature leadership, or because he is one of those "famous-for-being-famous" types?
*******

Levant: Speech Proves Justin Trudeau is Unqualifed to be PM
Published on Mar 10, 2015
Ezra Levant weighs in on Justin Trudeau's controversial March 9, 2015 speech:
First, Trudeau falsely conflates a Muslim woman wearing a headscarf in a Quebec courtroom, to the Harper government's ban on wearing full face coverings during citizenship swearing in ceremonies.
Even worse, Trudeau then compared the experiences of present-day Muslim immigrants to the shameful chapter in Canadian history, when Jewish refugees were turned away circa World War II.
(That was done by a Liberal Prime Minister, incidentally.)
In actuality, since 9/11, the Canadian Muslim population has doubled, and -- concerningly -- the number of Saudi student visas issued has gone up dramatically.
(PS: The Globe & Mail covered Trudeau's speech last night -- but they quickly changed their original headline...)
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else:
http://www.TheRebel.media
*******

Justin Trudeau confused about ISIS, Syrian refugees
Published on Mar 31, 2015
Ezra Levant reports for TheRebel.media:
Canada just voted to extend and expand the war against the Islamic State to include parts of Syria.
Thirty-three MPs were absent for the vote, a number that Levant calls "appalling" and "unacceptable."
He singles out "moral coward" Irwin Cotler for abstaining. "Just retire already, Irwin."
There are legitimate reasons to oppose the war. The problem is, Levant says, that Justin Trudeau's "root causes" reasons are foolish. He also thinks Canada should accept 25,000 Syrian refugees. OK: Which side of that civil war would he choose them from?
JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.
http://www.TheRebel.media
*******
Also See:
How Does the Future Look for Canada?
17 December 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/12/how-does-future-look-for-canada.html
and
 Are You a Fan of Justin Trudeau?
18 November 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/11/are-you-fan-of-justin-trudeau.html
and
Why is Obama Getting Involved with Canadian Politics?
24 October 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/10/obama-machine-takes-over-canada-by.html
 *******

Police Murder Lavoy Finicum!

$
0
0

*******
*******
Warning: graphic images

FBI releases video footage of LaVoy Finicum shooting
Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum shooting in slow-motion The FBI footage that shows the shooting of Robert 'LaVoy' Finicum prompted further questions about his death. This video shows the moments leading up to and after Finicum's death in slow motion.
*******
F.B.I. and Oregon Police Killed an Innocent Political Dissident
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
February 11, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
As an introduction to my thoughts on Lavoy Finicum's killing in Burns, Oregon, consider my article published in the Flathead Beacon's Two For Thought weekly Opinion section:
The FBI and Oregon police killed a rancher, Lavoy Finicum, last week. Lavoy joined Ammon Bundy, among others, for three weeks in occupying a refuge on public lands in Burns. Like many Americans, the occupiers believed BLM had been long abusing power. Police released one video of the incident (but not other pertinent surveillance). Was this killing lawful?
Under the Fourth Amendment, police who use deadly force have a burden to prove their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them based on the totality of the circumstances.
Regardless of one’s view of the occupation, the video raises issues regarding police’ actions: (1) Why block the highway in nowhere-ville? (2) Why use snipers and a dozen-plus officers? (3) Why not use spike strips to stop him? (4) When exactly was Lavoy likely to harm police?—when shot, Lavoy was facing no police, could barely walk in deep snow and held no gun. (5) Lavoy had not just committed a dangerous felony and fleeing therefrom. (6) Police had prior opportunities to serve an arrest warrant in a safe manner. (7) Why immediately rush Lavoy and spark conflict rather than contain the area and determine his actions?
The occupiers did not convince the greater part of society to aid them, given their seeming “state of war” approach. Still, if our laws can condemn Lavoy, they can also condemn police.
In fairness, there are some who are not normally forgiving to government abuse but believe police were justified in killing Lavoy: one such notable viewpoint on this incident is my dad, Chuck Baldwin. I, on the other hand, believe the video suggests that police were not justified in killing Lavoy when they did--even assuming he had a pistol inside his jacket and was reaching for it.
After Lavoy's death, his family was able to view his body. They released a press statement that they observed nine (9) bullet inserts in Lavoy's body. Police have yet to release autopsy records or comment on that statement; however, reports record police admitting that Lavoy was shot several times.
For now, assuming Lavoy was shot multiple times, those shots had to occur before the last shot--the kill shot to Lavoy's head, which dropped Lavoy to the snow-covered ground.
Since police did not release any audio or other videos--all of which they possess and could release--of the incident, the public does not know exactly when and how many times police shot Lavoy, with the exception of what appears to be the last shot to Lavoy's head.
Regardless of whether Lavoy was shot 9 (as Lavoy's family states) or a few times (as police state), the video shows that the last shot was the fatal head shot. Thus, the other shots were to his body before Lavoy was shot in the head. Of course, all of these shots had to happen within seconds after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up.
If Lavoy was shot more than once in his body before the last shot to his head, this supports the argument that quickly after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up (signaling his surrender) police shot him in his body. This would have caused Lavoy to drop his hands where he was shot.
Since Lavoy dropped his hands to his body and statements from both Lavoy's family and police state that Lavoy was shot several times in his body, one must assume that Lavoy dropped his hands and placed them on his body where he was shot. Ironically, Lavoy's dropping his hands in this manner was the alleged justification for killing Lavoy.
Did police create the "justification" of killing Lavoy by shooting him in his body, which caused him to drop his hands?
Still, assuming police did not shoot Lavoy in his body before they shot him in his head (which means they shot him while he was dead on the ground--why would they do that?) and assuming Lavoy was reaching for a pistol inside his jacket or pocket (which is it?), the video reveals that the police who rushed out of the woods and charged Lavoy killed him prematurely.
The video shows two police charging Lavoy (one from the bottom and one from the top of the video) immediately after Lavoy exited his truck. This rush approach was not only unnecessary, but also needlessly provocative under these circumstances.
In a real sense, police created the exigency needed to kill Lavoy for "officer safety", similar to police creating the exigency of completely blocking the road in what appears to be a location that gave Lavoy very little time to slow down or stop his truck. (One would need to study Oregon's and federal laws of when and how road blocks are to be conducted: there are limits by law. See e.g. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Ore. 131, 134, 743 P.2d 711, 712 (Or. 1987) (ruling road block was unconstitutional); see also Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Ore. 97, 125, 743 P.2d 692, 70 (Or. 1987) (discussion of constitutionality of road blocks).
This is clear from the video: police did not give Lavoy a reasonable opportunity to surrender and enough time to assess the danger level. Instead of the heavy force of police maintaining their positions behind cover until such time as Lavoy clearly demonstrated his intent, police--who appeared little concerned about containing the safety of everyone and use as little force as necessary--immediately charged Lavoy and quickly shot him.
But here are the factors that essentially demonstrate that police killed Lavoy unjustifiably.
During the short and quick period of time that the two aforementioned police rushed him, Lavoy (1) could hardly keep his footing in the deep snow, (2) had no gun in his hand, (3) had no meaningful opportunity to draw a pistol inside his clothing quickly enough to take accurate aim and shoot any nearby police, and (4) was not even facing the two nearest police (who charged him) when he was shot in the head and killed. The totality of these circumstances supports the conclusion that he was killed prematurely, or at a minimum, calls into question the police' claim of justification.
Assuming Lavoy would have pulled a gun at any time and posed a legitimate threat to a police officer, there were dozens of police ready and able to kill or disable Lavoy. This reality is what makes the actions of the two police who charged Lavoy appear so unnecessary, excessive and provocative. One must wonder how much training and experience the police had (especially who shot Lavoy) for these situations; what kind of briefing took place before the incident; and whether the rush tactic at a road block was preplanned or orchestrated.
Admittedly, more facts are needed to form a solid opinion here.
The government has a heavy burden of proof of justifying their killing of Lavoy. The released video and summary statement by police that since Lavoy was "going for a gun" police were justified in killing him do not meet that heavy burden: the totality of the circumstances simply does not appear to justify their killing Lavoy.
Police should release (as they should in time with demands from the Finnicum family attorneys) all of the evidence relative to the question, including:
• use of force reports
• incident reports
• police training manuals and certifications
• applicable warrants or court orders and affidavits in support
• written and recorded witness statements
• photos of entire scene and Lavoy's body
• in-car video surveillance of all vehicles and drones
• police body-cameras of all officers
• police policy and procedures (state and federal) for use of deadly force
• briefing memorandums
• dispatch records
• road block planning memorandums
• officer duty and task assignments
• autopsy report
• ballistic reports
One interested in justice would hope that the government does not withhold, destroy, lose or fabricate the evidence. Whether you agree with Lavoy and the Oregon occupiers or not, the government must follow the law. Accepting any other standard places all political dissidents and protestors in the government's absolute wrath and arbitrary use of deadly force. Liberty cannot survive in that environment.
Lastly, there are federal laws in effect to detain and prosecute "enemy combatants" and "domestic terrorists" who place themselves in a state of war with the United States. Notably, the federal and state governments did not treat Lavoy and the occupiers under such laws. Rather, they treated them as normal citizens of the United States who were simply breaking the law, such as criminal trespass, intimidation, and impeding an officer's investigation/duty. Therefore, Lavoy and the occupiers deserved the same treatment and respect of the law as you and I.
© 2016 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved.
Timothy Baldwin, born in 1979, is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and formerly Florida) and handles a variety of cases, including constitutional, criminal, and civil. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.
Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns–all of which are available for purchase through libertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.
*******
They lied: Numerous eyewitness accounts prove FBI edited footage of LaVoy Finicum shooting
Multiple eyewitnesses detail key moments not seen in supposed unedited video
By Alex Thomas
February 9, 2016
(INTELLIHUB) — In the weeks since the shooting death of patriot rancher LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, and others, numerous eyewitness testimony and independent reporting has completely debunked the notion that the FBI released unedited footage of the now infamous violent confrontation on an Oregon highway.
Amid a massive public outcry throughout social media, the FBI took the extraordinary step of releasing footage of the shooting and arrests just two days after they originally took place. Many saw this as proof that the feds weren’t trying to hide anything and that the killing of Finicum was indeed legal and justified.
While the footage released by the FBI did totally destroy the claim by Mark McConnell that LaVoy had charged at police, it more importantly left out key portions of what actually happened.
In other words, the FBI straight up LIED to every single American by releasing footage they claimed was complete and unedited when we now know that there are key parts, verified by multiple eyewitnesses and independent reporting, that are nowhere to be found in the official video released on the FBI YouTube channel.
*******
Published on Jan 28, 2016
*******
In key interviews done by Victoria Sharp and Shawna Cox, both women describe a point before LaVoy drove away (from what has been described as a hail of bullets) when Ryan Payne actually got out of the vehicle in what is believed to have been an attempt to put himself between the vehicle and the police about to shoot it up.
“Ryan Payne is amazing”
An outstanding report done by Lory Storm for KSDZ FM in Nebraska gets into the probable reasoning for why Victoria described Payne as amazing in the interview above.
“He did stick his hands out of the window, he did wave them, what you can’t see in the video is that the officer shot at him when he did that,” detailed Storm.
“He then got out of the truck fearing for the safety of everyone in there, including the two women, and posted himself in front of the armed men, tried to talk some sense into everyone and calm things down.
LaVoy decided if they were going to be stopped on the road and summarily shot at before they were even requested to get out of the vehicle that they weren’t safe…. and boy did he end up being right,” continued Storm.
For her part, Shawna Cox has done numerous interviews since her release from jail and in many of them she also goes over the moment Payne got out of the vehicle as well as multiple other key periods of time that we do not see in the “unedited” video released by the FBI.
*******

Shawna Cox Interview from 1/31/16 on Revolution Radio
*******
We are currently attempting to put together a full timeline of what eyewitnesses claim actually happened from the time they were originally pulled over up until Finicum was killed and the others arrested.
What we do know now, as Lory Storm so rightfully noted, is the FBI’s claim that this is an unedited video is completely debunked.
*******
Oregon standoff: Militia member loses foster kids, blames ‘pressure from the feds’
19 Jan, 2016
One of the most visible members of the armed militia that took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon says his four foster sons were taken away due to his involvement in the standoff, and he blames the federal government who “must have gotten to the governor.”
Robert “LaVoy” Finicum and his wife Jeanette have fostered more than 50 boys over the last decade at their ranch near Chino Valley, Arizona. The couple is licensed and has a care contract with the Catholic Charities Community Services. Many of the children came from mental hospitals, drug rehabs and group homes for emotionally distressed youth, he told Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB).
“My ranch has been a great tool for these boys,” Finicum said. “It has done a lot of good.”
He traveled to Oregon to take part in the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge at the beginning of January, leaving Jeanette to care for the four boys. But now the Finicums have no more fosters to care for.
A social worker began removing the last four of the family’s foster kids on January 4, the fourth day of the Oregon standoff. The last left five days later, he said.
“They didn’t go out at the same time,” Finicum said. “One was there for a year, one of the boys was there six months, another eight months, and a month. I don’t know where they ended up.”
He blamed the kids’ removals on “pressure from the feds.”
“They were ripped from my wife,” Finicum said. “We are very successful [foster parents]. Our track records are good, it’s been a good relationship. [Federal authorities] must have gotten to the governor, who told the state to get them out of there.”
A 2010 tax filing showed that Catholic Charities paid the Finicums $115,343 to foster children in 2009, OPB reported. That year, foster parents in Arizona were compensated between $22.31 and $37.49 per child, per day. If the couple was paid the maximum rate, they would have cared for an average of eight children a day in 2009.
“That was my main source of income,” Finicum said. “My ranch, well, the cows just cover the costs of the ranch. If this means rice and beans for the next few years, so be it. We’re going to stay the course.”
The last year for which Catholic Charities itemized the amount it paid the Finicums is 2009. However, the organization has significantly increased its foster-care payments since that time, according to OPB.
Critics point out, however, that by helping the Bundy brothers take over federal property in Oregon, he could potentially be arrested for committing crimes.
“[H]aving one parent away from the home for a significant period of time committing a number of high profile federal crimes would seem like at least a plausible reason to remove the children,” Josh Marshall wrote for the Talking Points Memo Editor’s Blog. “This doesn't seem to occur to Finicum.”
Another militia member, Blaine Cooper, also said that his children were taken from him in a video posted to Facebook on Saturday. The video was apparently removed later.
Cooper believes the FBI and Child Protective Services “are doing this to draw me out but they will fail horribly,” he wrote in a Facebook comment shared by All Your Based. Are Ours.
Finicum hopes that he will be able to foster again, as his license has not be revoked. However, he said, the couple is no longer receiving referrals to care for children. Finicum believes the loss of his four foster kids was a sacrifice worth making for the cause.
“I hope people are seeing the sacrifices we’re making here,” Finicum said. “I want to show what my government is doing. You need to understand the cost being paid by many people.”
Last week, Finicum and militia leader Ryan Bundy traveled to Utah to meet with county officials in the Beehive State who are reportedly eager to start a similar standoff with federal authorities over public land management, he told OPB.
“We went fast, and came back fast,” said Finicum. “I doubt [law enforcement] even knew we were gone. Probably they did. But they were nice enough to let us go and come back.”
The two returned to the Malheur Refuge by Friday, when Finicum reportedly took down a surveillance camera atop an electric pole that was suspected to be operated by the FBI. The Arizona rancher has served as a spokesman of sorts for the group.
*******
Franklin Graham assists end of Oregon rancher protest
By  A. Dru Kristenev -- Bio and Archives
February 11, 2016
When Occupy Wall Street overran city blocks, trashing private property and
businesses, ravaging women and screaming to obtain government subsidies, authorities turned a blind eye. But when protesters arrived at Malheur Wildlife Refuge January 2, 2016, to focus attention on ranchers jailed as terrorists for protecting their property from Bureau of Land Management mismanagement, media and government treated them as desperados.
The first group destroys private property and tramples individual rights yet is allowed to disperse and go on their merry way continuing to devastate others’ livelihood.
The second group, whittled down to four individuals quietly camped on the grounds of the refuge, attempted to keep a light on government violation of property rights.
Who are the real scofflaws? The OWS, and BlackLivesMatter, who willfully obliterated and looted businesses without consequence? Or the ranchers and their supporters who, threatening no one, moved into an empty building to address government transgression?
If you sided with the freeloading OWS and BLM (this includes both the government agency and the racist movement) destroying property over freedom-loving individuals standing to protect property rights, then our nation has failed.
Our country was founded on the inspired recognition of God-given individual rights, which feudal powers had thwarted for time immemorial. The documents that established the United States of America clearly articulated the nature of these unalienable rights in our person and property. Not two hundred years after the establishment of the nation, those rights had been winnowed to regulated usage of what citizens owned, virtually disenfranchising them of everything from their dogs to their homes, and in this case, the feeding of their cattle to provide meat for all of us.
What 25,000 of us just witnessed live through the internet (and close to 80,000 listened Wednesday night) was the level to which government will stoop to make nonviolent demonstrators fear for their very lives.
FBI’s shooting death of LaVoy Finicum in an ambush setting on a lonely, cell-silent piece of road in Eastern Oregon
On the heels of the FBI’s shooting death of LaVoy Finicum in an ambush setting on a lonely, cell-silent piece of road in Eastern Oregon two weeks ago, four lone protesters continued a vigil on the refuge, hoping their presence would keep the grazing and property rights issue before the public. They had no ill intent toward federal agents nor were they promoting lawlessness, at least not on their part. They were, however, spotlighting the flagrant lawlessness of federal agencies in limiting and revoking grazing rights of ranchers on public lands.
The byword here is “public.” The term was always to be defined as owned by the People of this nation. No longer does it carry that meaning. Instead “public” has been corrupted to mean owned by the government. For those who still believe that the two are interchangeable, a review of what government has become is required – an entity by and for itself, producing nothing but reaping everything – as opposed to its true, initial function, that of serving the People who constituted it.
The four remaining demonstrators, camping in a remote area on the refuge, were surrounded by armed FBI agents Wednesday, February 10, 2016. The siege’s purpose was to arrest these individuals for having used public lands as owners might, being representative of the public, for their gain or enjoyment. They were no threat to society nor had they destroyed public property. What they did do was have the audacity to not just speak up about government mismanagement of public lands, but to have a physical presence to make their point.
They didn’t burn or destroy the premises (which the BLM does on a regular basis, illegally setting backfires, or OWS and the other BLM did in their violent protests), nor did they interfere with any individuals’ rights of travel or property. In fact, it was the inappropriate use of armed officers that closed down the refuge and blocked the roads, creating a hazard.
The climax of this whole, avoidable FBI-induced standoff was the young man, David Fry, who feared the FBI’s lack of integrity, knowing how one forced confrontation had ended with a good man’s death. Anyone listening to the live feed Wednesday evening heard more than one instance where the FBI representative actually lied to the four individuals. Despite this, the first three walked out to authorities this morning after being assured that Rev. Franklin Graham and Michelle Fiore, Nevada assemblywoman, were present and waiting to receive them.
A great deal of prayer and conversation to ease tensions was necessary to convince a reasonably distrustful Fry to vacate the camp, all of which was streamed live by constitutional activist Gavin Seim of Washington. Two hours later, he walked out to join his fellows, closing the 42-day drama but not the ongoing, essential dialogue about government transgressing its power; power limited by the Constitution.
As much as national politics has overshadowed the news cycles with crass language amid candidate exchanges, there is no discussion of greater legitimacy and import than this one of government infringing individual rights. It is inherent in the issues of open borders, unvetted refugee influx, economy-straining regulation and taxation, sale of fetal tissue and body parts, and government funding all of the above. Every one of these concerns is of dire importance to the American people and the candidates must focus on communicating their substantial plans to handle them, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.
Set aside the populist, literal free-for-all, promising everything and delivering nothing but deeper debt and bondage to government. Take note of what just occurred in Eastern Oregon and address what takes real courage – standing for what’s right, not what’s easy.
Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev,  grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as both a representative of the paper and non-profit organizations.
Since 2007, Kristenev has authored four fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon.
*******

Bernie, the Socialist, Says Everything is Free! Is He Right?

$
0
0
*******
*******
Easy-Cheesy Socialist and Free College Degrees
But don’t take my word for it, vote for Bernie Sanders or his Democrat Alinsky-style adversary, and you shall “Feel the Bern” while you stand in line in sub-zero temperatures to get your “free” welfare rations
By  Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh --Bio and Archives 
February 12, 2016
“It is a socialist idea that making profits is a vice. I consider the real vice is making losses.”  – Winston Churchill
Because I lived the utopian nightmare of socialism/communism, I think I am qualified to explain the big lie to the young men and women who dreamily and robotically applaud the socialist candidate, Bernie Sanders, for his promise of handouts and especially of free college education.
I am sure, the young Americans, many with worthless, easy-cheesy social work and racial/gender studies degrees and some with worthy college degrees, who find themselves unemployed, will be happy to know that, under Bernie’s mega trillions economic plan, they will find themselves unemployed for free, no college debt. They will “Feel the Bern” of socialism and rejoice in it.
Education, like medical care, was free, but it came with huge strings attached and it was not worth much because the pay was equal, regardless of effort. And you had to go where the government decided to send you in order to pay back your indebtedness to government. Nothing was free, just because they said it was free, it was basic economics, even though socialists called it something else.
If you were an educator, you had to teach in a small and remote village without roads, running water, and electricity, housed in some primitive home with a thatched roof. If you were a doctor, you had to practice for years in a far-away community who had never seen a nurse in their lives or the inside of a hospital.
To get to your assigned post, you had to travel the last leg of your trip in an oxen-pulled wagon.  If you were an engineer, you had to go by train to different locations around the country where the dear leader was building his latest megalomaniacal projects. Nobody ate for free! You had to work, even if it was just sweeping streets, planting trees, weeding the fields, gathering crops, or digging ditches. Nobody was too educated for menial labor.
Before you were able to enter the university, you had to pass the muster of many examination boards, starting in middle school and college. If your grades were good, that was not enough; your communist pedigree and activism had to equally match your academic performance. If your parents were not members in good standing with the communist party and licked their boots, it did not matter how smart you were or how perfect your grades were. Your chance of getting in was slim to none. On the other hand, students who barely passed in high school but were children of prominent communist party leaders got in first. Membership in the communist elite had its privileges.
Free Castro-style medical care was one of the staples of socialism but it came with rationing of care, unqualified personnel, bribes to be seen on time or first, rationing of drugs, empty pharmacy shelves, and early and unnecessary death at the hands of uncaring and half-baked doctors and atrocious hospital conditions.
You should ask yourselves, if socialist health care is so great, why do Hollywood elites and wealthy foreigners seek treatment for their serious illnesses at the best hospitals money can buy in the United States? Why are they not going to Cuba? Michael Moore spoke non-stop about the superiority of Castro’s medical care when compared to our evil capitalist healthcare.
Did we get free cable? Not really, we got two channels daily and one educational channel at certain hours. And we had to pay every month voluntarily. Inspectors would show up unannounced randomly to check our passbook to make sure all the payment stamps were in order for both TV and radio subscriptions. Nobody got to listen to the dear leader’s Pinocchio speeches for free or to classical music.
We did get subsidized housing because salaries were so equally low. It wasn’t much space, 300-400 square feet, the size of a nice hotel room today, but it was in brand-new, concrete block apartments, with wonderful stairs we had to take turns to sweep and mop, and no elevators. The proletariat needed a good workout every day, going up and down.
Not only will you not get a free Prius or Smart Car, you will be lucky to ride the public transportation for a subsidized fee. We got to ride on buses with subsidized fares, or we could walk as far as our feet could carry us. Biking was a daredevil’s adventure – many riders and pedestrians were run over by cars and buses. Life was pretty worthless in those times. Offenders still went to jail though.  And bikes disappeared before you could say “stolen.”
Dormitories looked like army barracks, with walls peeling paint like a bad manicure, and furnished with WWII-like era beds with chicken wire. University cafeterias served the standard fare, cabbage or soup with a few pieces of meat floating on top and plenty of cooking with rapeseed oil and garlic to drown the lack of taste. Bread was plentiful, hard as a rock, and difficult to chew.
We got to go to the movies in a large group for one leu a viewing because we were so poor. It was the commie’s way to pacify the oppressed and throw them a bone once in a while in the form of subsidized movies, a concert, or a play. Only the elites could afford such entertainment on a regular basis.
For those of you young and entitled Americans who like the idea of anything free, especially marijuana clinics, rest-assured that, under communism, you will be put in jail for any drug use and they will lose the key forever.
There was plenty of booze and cigarettes but income was so equally low, you had to give up other important staples in order to buy them. You could drown your miserable life and sorrow in cheap vodka or home-made “tzuica” and darken your lungs with economical “Marasesti” cigarettes. It is still quite fashionable to smoke all over Europe today. You cannot look cool and sophisticated without a lit cigarette and a cup of very bitter and thick coffee.
But don’t take my word for it, vote for Bernie Sanders or his Democrat Alinsky-style adversary, and you shall “Feel the Bern” while you stand in line in sub-zero temperatures to get your “free” welfare rations.
For all my “free” education I received under communism, I had to pay the state back the sum they decided it was worth, once I left the country to live free in the United States. Why should the “capitalist pigs and spies” benefit from my excellent communist education?
Freedom has a heavy price but young people are mesmerized by the empty words of current communists because they never studied their history or forgot what little they did know and are now going to repeat it, with disastrous results.
And those of you who are so accustomed to smart phones, iPad, iPhone, blackberries, laptops, and other gadgets, Smart Cars, your expensive bikes, remember that equal and meager pay will not buy you such luxuries. And, if you are on welfare and the government is providing them, they can be taken away just as easily as they are given.
Look at the “free” healthcare you are now getting under ObamaCare for a hefty monthly premium, huge deductions, and large fines for non-compliance (in 2016, $695 or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater), if you are lucky to find a physician who will accept your worthless government insurance, or find a qualified specialist within your area. Stories of the victims of such socialist healthcare are beginning to filter through the Internet.
The fact that Stalinists, Leninists, and Bolsheviks cannot possibly deliver on any of their promises is exemplified by Dr. Aurel Mircea, a medical doctor, who grew up under communism and eventually fled to freedom in the United States.
“The founders of European Socialism, the Marxist-Leninist scholars, all a bunch of ideologues without the slightest experience in job-creation, advocated free education from k-12 and college. When the communist economies held a tight grip on the people’s lives, the slogan promulgated all over was “Social Equality.” Sure, by then, everybody was equally miserable and poor. As far as the education was concerned, everyone was equally brainwashed and forced to accept revised history, junk science, fabricated political data, and submission to the rules of the Proletarian Dictatorship. The trend still continues to this day, all over the word, shrewdly disguised as new democracies and social justice.”
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business,  every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com..
Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com
*******
*******
Financial ScandalsFollow SocialistMillionaireSanders
By Cliff Kincaid
February 6, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
Responding to one of Anderson Cooper’s softball questions, socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told the CNN Town Hall on Wednesday night that he lives a frugal life and indicated that he doesn’t care about money or status. “I have a small Chevrolet,” he said. “It is one of the smallest Chevys that they make.” He said it was about five years old.
But James O’Brien, a political consultant and former publisher of Campaigns & Elections magazine, says the career politician, who has been a mayor, member of Congress and U.S. senator, has achieved the financial status of a millionaire.
O’Brien has analyzed the financial status of Sanders and his wife, including their financial disclosure report, and has concluded they have a net worth in the range of $1.2 to $1.5 million, not the $700,000 or less that is usually reported by the media.
Rather than “Feel the Bern,” the phrase associated with popular support for the self-declared “democratic socialist,” O’Brien says that Sanders is personally “Feelin’ the Wealth.”
Equally significant, his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, left her position as president of Burlington College under controversial circumstances and is now being accused of federal bank fraud. She left her position at the college and was given a severance package known as a “golden parachute” that also benefited Senator Sanders’ personal wealth.
Brady C. Toensing, a partner with the law firm of diGenova & Toensing, has filed a legal complaint with federal authorities requesting an investigation into apparent federal bank fraud committed by Ms. Sanders. His complaint was sent to Eric S. Miller, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont, and Fred W. Gibson, Jr., Acting Inspector General with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
A Sanders spokesman told the Burlington Free Press that the complaint was an effort to throw mud at the presidential candidate.
O’Brien says that Sanders’ financial disclosure forms are incomplete. “For someone who doesn’t care about money, he goes a long way to cover up his true net worth,” he says. “Bernie does not disclose the value of real estate holdings. He can. He is not required to, but he could if he chose. It is known that he and/or his wife own at least two homes—one with rental income in Vermont and one near Capitol Hill where the median home value is $722,000.”
O’Brien bases his conclusions about Sanders’ millionaire status on what is known and can be estimated about his salary, the income of his wife, joint income, investments, pension, and value of his real estate properties.
On top of this, O’Brien notes that Sanders benefits from a multi-million dollar U.S. Senate staff and a multi-million dollar U.S. presidential campaign staff.
In addition to the questions about his real net worth, Jane Sanders’ exit from Burlington College continues to generate controversy, even scandal. She was president of the college from 2004 until 2011.
Federal officials have acknowledged the complaint about Jane Sanders from attorney Brady C. Toensing, but they won’t say whether they are going forward with an investigation.
Although Senator Sanders frequently complains about the “corporate media” that are supposed to have a bias against his candidacy, the necessary task of digging into the finances of his wife has been left to the conservative media and some local Vermont news organizations.
At the very least—as noted by Bruce Parker, a Vermont reporter for Watchdog.org—Senator Sanders should be asked to explain how his opposition to severance packages for corporation executives squares with his wife getting a cushy severance of $200,000.
In a story headlined, “Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank,” reporters Blake Neff and Peter Fricke of the conservative Daily Caller News Foundation reported the essential facts of the case, noting that she nearly bankrupted Burlington College when she took on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. “The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution,” Neff and Fricke report.
By any standard of fair and objective news reporting, a candidate who promises “free college” to America’s young people should be asked to address the issue of his wife’s financial shenanigans almost bankrupting an institution of higher learning. But it hasn’t been raised in the debates.
At one point it was reported that Burlington College was fighting for its very survival. “As a result of its financial woes, Burlington College is on academic probation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges,” reported VTDigger.org, a statewide news website, in 2014.
VT Digger confirmed the nefarious role played by Jane Sanders, noting that she “overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.” Jane Sanders “resigned under pressure from the Burlington College board of trustees nearly a year after obtaining the multi-million dollar loan,” the site reported. “After both sides lawyered up, the board gave Sanders the title of president emeritus and a $200,000 severance package.”
A Republican activist named Skip Vallee produced a 60-second television advertisement entitled, “Bernie’s Golden Parachute,” describing the nature of the $200,000 severance package and making the point that while Sanders was planning a presidential run “on a theme of railing against golden parachutes and excesses” on Wall Street, he took “his own golden parachute” through his wife’s curious dealings with the cash-strapped college.
The ad features the “S” in Sanders in the shape of a dollar sign and shows Sanders saying the rich in America “manipulate a rigged system” and benefit from “golden parachutes.”
On top of this scandal, The Washington Free Beacon has reported that Senator Sanders used campaign money to benefit members of his family, and that Jane Sanders directed six-figure sums from Burlington College to her daughter and the son of a family friend.
“Getting money out of politics” is one of the planks in Sanders’ presidential campaign platform.
© 2016 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff's books, "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.
Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.
Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc.
*******
*******
Democratic Candidate Bernie Sanders and Wife Sent Money to Some Questionable Causes
By Kelsey Rupp
January, 2016

On October 24, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa.  (Getty - Scott Olson)
Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s anti-corruption image is getting some pushback with a new investigation into the family’s use of finances.
Lachlan Markay at The Washington Free Beacon notes, in an investigation published Wednesday, that Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, have:
“On numerous occasions steered money from organizations under their control to friends and family members, public records show.”
The first instance noted is when Sanders’s House campaigns paid O’Meara Sanders $90,000 for consulting and ad placement services from 2002 to 2004. About $30,000 stayed with O’Meara Sanders as compensation.
During that same time frame, O’Meara Sanders’s daughter, the presidential candidate’s step-daughter, was paid more than $65,000 for her work on the campaign.
CHICAGO, IL - AUGUST 17: Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gets a kiss from his wife Jane Sanders before speaking at a meet-and-greet fundraising reception at the Park West on August 17, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois. Sanders' visit to Chicago follows a campaign trip to Iowa. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)


Image Credit: Scott Olson/Getty
The Sanders campaign did not return Independent Journal’s request for comment.
Markay further noted:
“After working for the campaign, the senator’s wife would come under scrutiny for expenditures at Burlington College, where she was hired as president in 2004. While she led the school, it paid six-figure sums to her daughter and the son of a family friend.”
“Burlington College offered its students a study abroad program in the Caribbean, according to tax filings. It reported spending about $47,000 on that program in the tax year beginning in mid-2008.”
At that time, the son of a Burlington College board member who served with Sanders in the Burlington city government purchased a small resort in the Bahamas.
Burlington College began paying Jonathan Leopold, the owner of the resort, for all-inclusive stays for its study abroad students. From 2009 through 2011 it paid the resort about $68,000, according to annual tax filings.
The payments stopped the year O’Meara Sanders resigned.
(Image Credit: Darren McCollester/Getty)
MANCHESTER, NH - NOVEMBER 29: Supporters hold signs for Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outside the Radisson Hotel before the Jefferson Jackson Dinner November 29, 2015 in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Under O’Meara Sanders’s tenure as president of Burlington College, and for a single year after her departure, the school also paid more than $500,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School, which was run by their daughter Driscoll.
Even O’Meara Sanders’s departure from Burlington College was a source of controversy.
Local reporting highlighted by Markay notes that the former college president overstated pledged donations in a loan application. O’Meara Sanders used a $6.7 million loan to expand the college by purchasing a 33-acre property on Lake Champlain from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington.
The school also used a loan from the diocese to pay for the property.
O’Meara Sanders resigned from the college in 2011 after reaching a settlement with the Board of Trustees, which voted to negotiate an early exit package. Her future contract negotiations stalled over questions about her plans and fundraising.
Sanders is polling at 32% in the Real Clear Politics polling average. He trails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is at 53.3%.
*******
*******
Bernie Sanders' Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Increase Federal Spending By At Least $28 Trillion
Jan 18, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders participates in the NBC News -YouTube Democratic Candidates Debate on January 17, 2016 at the Gaillard Center in Charleston, South Carolina.. / AFP / TIMOTHY A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images)
On Sunday, January 17—hours before the Democratic presidential debate on NBC—Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders released details of his proposal to replace the entire U.S. health care system with a universal, government-run, single-payer one. “Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance,” said Sanders in a white paper published on his campaign website. “We must…achieve the goal of universal health care.” Sanders also published an analysis indicating that his plan would increase federal spending by at least 55 percent, reigniting the debate about whether single-payer health care is worth the money.
*******

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Spar On Health Care | MSNBC
*******
Berniecare’s core concept: Free health care for everyone
In recent days, Hillary Clinton has criticized Sanders on health care policy. Clinton has claimed that Sanders’ single-payer plan would dismantle Obamacare, forcing Democrats to “start over again” and “set us back.” Her campaign has pressed Sanders for details on how his plan would work. Hence Sanders’ new publications.
In Sanders’ eight-page campaign white paper, entitled “Medicare for All,” the self-described “democratic socialist” outlines his plan’s core principles.
The plan would effectively abolish the private health insurance industry, including companies like UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, and Anthem. It would charge the government with designing and administering a universal, comprehensive insurance product that would cover “the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments.”
Berniecare would also abolish cost-sharing by patients; i.e., no co-pays, deductibles, or coinsurance payments, and minimal premiums. “No more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges,” says Sanders.
While Sanders bills his plan as “Medicare for all,” it bears little resemblance to Medicare, which does in fact require premiums and cost-sharing from its enrollees, though this cost-sharing is heavily subsidized by younger taxpayers.
In addition, Medicare does not cover every category of health care service, nor does it cover catastrophic health care needs. As Ezra Klein notes, “The list of what Sanders’s plan would cover far exceeds what Medicare offers, suggesting, more or less, that pretty much everything will be covered, under all circumstances.”
Berniecare would increase total federal spending by at least 55%
Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy director, retained Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to come up with a fiscal score of the Sanders plan. Friedman estimates that the plan would require $13.8 trillion in new government spending in the decade spanning 2017 through 2026. But that estimate is misleading, for reasons I’ll outline below.
(Bear with me; this section and the next one have a lot of numbers.)
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national health care spending from 2017–26 will approximate $47.4 trillion. $13.6 trillion of that is spent by the federal government and $8.4 trillion by state and local government; the remainder is spent directly by private businesses ($9.2 trillion) and individuals ($12.8 trillion).
Friedman, the UMass economist, believes that the Sanders plan will reduce national health care spending by $6.3 trillion, presumably by some combination of rationing care and government price controls, though these aren’t specified. Sanders misleadingly implies that his plan wouldn’t require rationing (“No more fighting with insurance companies”), but a footnote in the Friedman memo indicates that Berniecare would fail to cover “20% of out-of-pocket spending” because it is “deemed not medically necessary.”
Since Berniecare would replace the entirety of the existing U.S. health care system with a new single-payer one, Friedman projects its total cost to be $40.9 trillion from 2017 to 2026, and argues that the plan would raise enough in taxes to cover $13.7 trillion in new government spending.
But Friedman ignores a critical fact: a big chunk of today’s government health care spending is undertaken by states and localities, not the federal government.
As a result, even by Friedman’s own optimistic projections about what single-payer health care could save, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $28.3 trillion over ten years. If Friedman is wrong, and the plan fails to reduce the growth of health care spending, it would result in $32.7 trillion in new federal spending.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that total federal spending from 2017 to 2026, under current law, will exceed $51 trillion. So, under Friedman’s rosy scenario, Sanders’ health care plan would increase federal spending by an astounding 55 percent. If the promised savings fail to materialize, it would increase federal spending by 64 percent—or more.
Such a plan would, of course, be a boon to the budgets of states and localities, who would be freed from the need to pay for health insurance through programs like Medicaid. But there would be no guarantee that Americans would see those savings in the form of lower taxes. Indeed, in most cases, states would be likely to keep the money and spend it on other priorities.
At least $14 trillion in new taxes, deficits
Berniecare would partially pay for that $28.3 trillion in new federal spending by raising $13.9 trillion in new taxes. The plan would impose a new 6.2 percent payroll tax, raising $6.3 trillion. It would levy a 2.2 percent “income-based premium” on U.S. households, raising $2.1 trillion.
Berniecare would raise income taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends, estate taxes, and cap tax deductions, raising another $2.4 trillion. Because the plan would replace employer-sponsored insurance with government-run health insurance, it would reap $3.1 trillion in new taxes from the workforce: a kind of super-charged Cadillac tax.
In sum, if Friedman is right that Berniecare could reduce the growth of national health spending, the plan would “only” increase the deficit by $14.4 trillion. If Friedman is wrong, the plan could increase the deficit by nearly $19 trillion.
And Friedman is almost certainly wrong. It’s far more likely that once Berniecare made virtually every health care service free to the consumer, that health care spending would go up, not down. Furthermore, the $14 trillion in new taxes would hammer the economy, leading to less federal revenue and greater deficits.
Kudos to Sanders for putting numbers on paper
Bernie Sanders’ single-payer fantasy will never happen. Even when Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate—a filibuster-proof majority—they couldn’t enact single-payer health care. It’s hard to imagine Democrats regaining a 60-seat majority anytime soon, let alone control of the House of Representatives.
But even 60 Democratic senators would face massive resistance if they attempted to increase federal deficits by $14 trillion—or more—by imposing single-payer health care.
So we owe Bernie Sanders and Gerald Friedman a measure of thanks. By unintentionally pointing out the utter foolishness of single-payer, government-run health care in America, they’ve given us more impetus to think about how we could make the health care system better—and expand access to more people—by putting individuals back in charge of their own health care dollars.
*   *   *
UPDATE: I’ve slightly tweaked the above calculations using updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office’s 2016 Budget and Economic Outlook. John Goodman points out that if the point of single-payer is to save money through price controls, you don’t have to impose single-payer: just a price-control law. Ryan Ellis elaborates on the impact of Sanders’ proposal to hike the estate tax. Chris Conover estimates that Sanders’ open bar-style plan—free health care for everyone with weak rationing—would require $44 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, not $28 trillion. His chartis below.
FOLLOW @Avik on Twitter, Google+, and YouTube, and The Apothecary on Facebook. Or, sign up to receive a weekly e-mail digest of articles from The Apothecary.
*******
*******
Bernie Sanders is also a thief, even though only a piker compared to Hillary
By Doug Book, editor
January 18, 2016
After she left the White House, “Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.”
HILLARY BROKE
Of course that was petty larceny compared with the countless millions the Clinton’s have amassed during the Pay to Play years of the Clinton Foundation. What follows is a disturbing example of theft-by-political-clout.
Between 2009 and 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency Rosatom purchased Uranium One, “…a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.” According to a New York Times article, the Canadian owners of the company had been heavy donors to the Clinton Foundation during the sale process. And why would the Chairman of Uranium One donate $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation; money which was not publicly disclosed by the Clintons “…despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors?”
According to NY Times contributors Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, the reason for the donations was obvious. They write of the Uranium One sale:
“Being a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies HILLARY ACCOMPLISHMENTS that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
The purchase of Uranium One gave Russia control of 1/5th of the world’s uranium production. But of course, sufficient millions had been donated to the Clinton Foundation piggy bank to render the treason involved tolerable to a former President and serving Secretary of State.
As the New York Times puts it, “…the Clinton Foundation [was] headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer HILLARY BROKE 2American foreign policy as secretary of state.”
If Hillary is a first rate thief and traitor, Bernie Sanders is, by comparison, just a “poor corrupt official.”
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O’MeaBERNIE SANDERS 3ra Sanders, “On numerous occasions steered money from organizations under their control to friends and family members, public records show.”
For example: Sanders paid his wife $90,000 for “consulting and ad placement services” during a number of his House campaigns.
In addition:
• Sanders step-daughter (his wife’s daughter) collected $65,000 for her work on Bernie’s campaigns.
• “After working for the campaign, the senator’s wife would come under scrutiny for expenditures at Burlington College, where she was hired as president in 2004. While she led the school, it paid six-figure sums to her daughter and the son of a family friend.”
• The son of a Burlington College Board member who served with Mrs. Sanders in the Burlington city govt. bought a small resort in the Bahamas. Mrs. Sanders, as President of the college, paid the BERNIE SANDERS 7young man’s resort $68,000 between 2009-2011 for the stays of College “study abroad” students. All payments from the college stopped when Mrs. Sanders resigned her position.
• During her tenure as president, Burlington College paid $500,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School. The school was operated by the Sanders’ daughter, Driscoll.
• While school president, Mrs. Sanders overstated pledged donations to the school in a loan application to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The school purchased 33 acres from the Diocese with a $6.7 million loan from the Diocese!
BERNIE SANDERS 6
Jane O’Meara Sanders received a $200,000 parting gift from the Burlington College, probably because it was cheaper than keeping her on!
Mrs. Sanders “resigned from the college in 2011 after reaching a settlement with the Board of Trustees, which voted to negotiate an early exit package. Her future contract negotiations stalled over questions about her plans and fundraising.” Imagine that.
Bernie and Jane are apparently not possessed of the power necessary to steal the millions Bill and Hillary have gotten away with. But then Bernie is not a former president and God willing, never shall be.
Aren’t Socialists supposed to give rather than take?
*******

Gold Sacks Goldman Sachs
Published on Feb 18, 2016
The Peter Schiff Show Podcast - Episode 144
Sign up for my free newsletter:
http://www.europac.net/subscribe_free...
Peter Schiff Gold News: http://www.SchiffGold.com/news
*******

Venezuela Is Out of Food! Who's Next?

$
0
0
*******
*******
The Human Cost of Venezuela’s Capital Control Nightmare
Currency Restrictions Only Make it Harder for Venezuelans to Flee Misery
José Niño
February 17, 2016
https://panampost.com/jose-nino/2016/02/17/the-human-cost-of-venezuelas-capital-control-nightmare/
Only Venezuelans with foreign bank accounts in dollars or skilled professionals can get by abroad. (Monedas de Venezuela)
While their country is experiencing the worst economic crisis in its history, many Venezuelan professionals have had to look outside their borders for better opportunities.
Recent records show that 1.5 million Venezuelans have left the country since 1999. This number has only kept growing as Venezuela’s economy spirals out of control.
Many Venezuelans aspire to leave the country since the highly politicized Central Bank has completely devalued the national currency, the bolivar, with its inflationary policies.
But those seeking economic exile must also face capital and currency controls in order to leave in the first place. First implemented by Hugo Chávez in 2003, these measures were used to stem the capital flight caused by the 2002 oil workers’ strike.
These capital controls started out as measures that targeted the rich in order to supposedly reign in their greed and their ability to move vast sums of capital abroad.
History, however, has shown that regulations that start out solely targeting the rich eventually turn into all-encompassing controls that affect all social classes.
In Venezuela, currency controls have recently evolved into travel allowances that limit the amount of foreign currency that citizens can use on their foreign travels.
These limits have varied from year to to year but, as of 2015, Venezuelans can only take US$2000 with them on trips abroad. Additionally, travelers heading to the United States will also have reduced cash quotas of $700 at their disposal.
Naturally, this represents a major obstacle for many Venezuelans whose trust in the dollar is much higher than the devalued bolivar. In effect, these measures serve as a “barrier of exit” for many Venezuelans.
Only skilled professionals or those with foreign bank deposits in dollars can get by abroad. Professionals must still brave months of job searches with the looming threat of their paltry dollar allowance running out during this time frame.
Venezuela’s poor, on the other hand, unfortunately do not enjoy these advantages and are effectively trapped inside the country. Unsurprisingly, 90 percent of Venezuelans who have fled after the Bolivarian Revolution are university educated professionals, with a significant minority belonging to a higher income segment.
So although the government implemented currency controls in order to prevent capital flight, there was a more sinister motive behind the measure: the control of the Venezuelan populace, especially its ability to move in and out of the country.
The recent flight of Venezuelan professionals is essentially a brain drain; some of the country’s most talented individuals must search for greener pastures abroad due to the unfavorable economic and political circumstances in their country of origin.
This case is all too familiar in Latin American history. In recent decades, Colombians, Cubans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans have had to leave their countries en masse due to unfavorable economical, political, or social circumstances.
Contrary to popular belief, “brain drains” may actually yield net benefits to the the exiles’ countries of origin. Michael A. Clemens, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD), notes that migrants have the ability to “transfer money, skills, and even democratic ideas” to their native countries.
However, these potential benefits may never come into fruition if governments decide to impose limits on migration.
In a globalized era in which travel is becoming increasingly affordable, citizens have more power than ever to forge their destiny wherever they see fit.
Ideally, nation states in a globalized world should be competing with each other in order to attract the most talented workers across the globe. In the 21st century, no citizen should be treated as a serf who is bound and shackled to his homeland.
Sadly, governments that impose primitive mechanisms of control such as Venezuela’s have different ideas.
The true culprit of Venezuela’s economic tragedy is the lack of respect for economic freedom during the past 50 years. For Venezuela to overcome this dark chapter in its history, it must abandon both the socialism of the present and the soft-socialism of its not too distant past.
Only a system of capitalism based on the rule of law and the respect for individual and economic liberties can correct the policy flaws of the past 50 years.
José Niño is a student based Santiago, Chile, and a PanAm Post intern. A citizen of the world, he has lived in Venezuela, Colombia, and the United States and is a former member of Students For Liberty’s Executive Board.
Follow @JoseAlNino
*******
As Socialist Economy Implodes, Venezuela Creates Army-Run Oil Firm
President Maduro Hands Over New State Company to the Military amid Criticism from Own Supporters
Sabrina Martín
February 16, 2016
As if the Venezuelan government didn’t have too much on its plate, it has decided to set up a new state-owned oil firm — and give it to the army.
On Wednesday, February 10, Venezuela’s Official Gazette quietly announced the creation of the Anonymous Military Corporation of Mining, Oil, and Gas Industries (Camimpeg). It carried President Nicolás Maduro’s signature and that of all his ministers.
Operating alongside PDVSA, Venezuela’s main oil exporter, Camimpeg will be tasked with repairing and maintaining oil wells, administering oil drilling, importing, exporting, distributing, and selling chemical products for the mining sector. The company will also be in charge of managing sea transportation and building infrastructure.
The Venezuelan state is the new company’s majority shareholder and it follows the executive’s guidelines. It will be run by a board composed of five members, to be appointed by Vladimir Padrino López, Venezuela’s Defense Minister.
The company’s creation has been met with criticism, even within the ruling socialist party.
A critical columnist in Aporrea, a Chavista propaganda outlet, labelled the move as a “quiet coup d’état” against PDVSA by Padrino López. The article attacks the Maduro administration’s “complicity and submission” for allowing the creation of a parallel oil firm.
The article assures that Camimpeg will have an autonomous budget, which means it will not depend on the Ministry of Oil and Mining. At the same time, it will not be subject to Congress’s authority to evaluate public tenders.
According to the Aporrea article, the new oil concern will operate above the law since the government is leaving “the country’s entire economic apparatus” in the hands of the military.
Maduro’s Appeasement to the Army?
José Toro Hardy, an economist and former director of PDVSA, told the PanAm Post that the Venezuelan army has no experience in the oil and mining sector, so he doesn’t see a valid reason for creating Camimpeg.
“We all hold the same fear, that it’s some kind of offer or tribute to the military who are loyal to the regime … It’s curious that the firm not only operates simultaneously [with PDVSA], but that it has also been entrusted to the army,” Toro said.
Suspicions have arisen, he explained, because  there is no training in managing petroleum or mining ventures within the Venezuelan army.
It is still unknown whether PDVSA, which is near bankrumptcy, will continue operating or, if it does, in what capacity.

Left: Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López will appoint Camimpeg’s directors. (Aporrea)

“I have no doubt that PDVSA is financially and productively damaged … it should be producing over 5 million oil barrels a day but the current output is not even half of that,” Toro explained.
“Nowadays, we’re not producing the gasoline that we need. Crude oil drilling plants are not operating, and we’re importing crude oil to be able to meet international deals … PDVSA is the example of a true disaster,” he said.
Toro argued that the Venezuelan economy is in no shape to create another corporation like Camimpeg, because “you need management skills that the army doesn’t have. You also need investment, which the state will supposedly provide, but the state doesn’t have anything to contribute.”
While run by the Venezuelan military, where corruption is notorious, Camimpeg will not improve Venezuela’s reputation abroad, Toro said. Currently, the state-run oil giant PDVSA is under investigation for money laundering in the United States.
Translated by Daniel Duarte.
*******

Venezuela Food Crisis - What It Means For You
Published on Aug 19, 2015
Venezuela Food Crisis and Food Shortages Lines of Hope - citizens of Venezuela are standing for hours in long lines, hoping if they make it into a store with some food available. Venezuelans are suffering with a food crisis with shortages of chicken, milk, coffee, cooking oil, cornmeal, rice, sugar, detergent, soap, and toilet paper. These food shortages have worsened over the last several years. No food is on the shelves in stores even if shoppers make it inside. Are you prepared for such an ordeal in our country? Socialism, Communism, and corruption on all levels leave people with daily hardships. Are you prepared to battle mobs to find basic necessities? Are you ready for the military to chase you if you have food? That is happening in Venezuela now. Don't prepare to fight for food like people in Venezuela. Stock up on things you need while they are readily available.
*******

Even Rich Venezuelans Can't Find Food
Published on Mar 7, 2015
Source: http://www.cnn.com/videos/
March 07, 2015 - CNN's Maggie Lake reports on the chaos in Venezuela as the cost of living skyrockets following plunging oil prices.
*******
Open Letter to Venezuelan President Maduro: Please Resign
The Best Thing You Can Do Is Get Out of the Way of Venezuela's Recovery
Thabata Molina
February 15, 2016
Mr. President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro:

It is still unclear to me whether you are Venezuelan or not, but assuming you were born in this country, I’d like to ask you, in the name of millions who are suffering under the current economic crisis, to step down as president.
As a Venezuelan, I have thousands of reasons to demand your resignation. My country has reached rock bottom, and it’s time to start over. The “revolution” you are commanding has destroyed the Venezuelan identity. I can’t stand one more day of watching people beg for basic medicines. This is not a luxury. People’s lives at at risk. Accept it, you must resign.
I refuse to tolerate your mockery of my people. You cynically tell them that life in Venezuela is good, but the truth is that most people are hungry and in need, while you and your cronies shamelessly squander our money on luxuries.
You only need a tiny bit of dignity to acknowledge that you are not fit to run a country. Nowadays, you are the country’s most serious problem.
Chavismo transformed Venezuela, although not into a sophisticated country. It turned Venezuela into a prison where mediocrity is promoted, ignorance is extolled, dissidence is punished, and reality is ignored.
You are at the helm, but not because you’re the most capable person around. Your administration has proved that the contrary is the case countless times. You are in charge not due to your own merit, but because Chavismo had no other choice when its leader died in 2013.
No one believes the story that all Venezuelans lead happy lives in an alleged state of equality, which certainly does not apply to your cronies. I’m absolutely sure than not even you believe the excuse that thousands of  “enemies” are to blame for our country’s problems.
This is why I feel contempt for those who lie to people by saying that “imperialism” is to blame for the lack of food. That “El Niño” is to blame for the shortage of water and electricity; that right-wingers are to blame for inflation; that paramilitary groups are the only ones causing violence; that we can’t make ends meet “because people are eating too much.”
Stop lying and quit already.
Take responsibility and have some humility. Stop manipulating your ignorant followers and put an end to this farce that is harming too many people. It’s not just the 5 million Chavistas who voted for you who are facing very difficult times. Each of Venezuela’s 30 million citizens  deserves a normal country, where most problems, which are unavoidable like in any other nation, can be overcome with hard work.
In every country, it’s common for citizens to mock their politicians. And in Venezuela, you are the laughing stock, except that politicians themselves are mocking citizens with every event, speech, and show.
A country where you have to wait in line to buy food, where people have their fingerprints checked like criminals just to be able to buy groceries, is not normal. A place where you can only go to the supermarket on certain days depending on your national ID number is not a normal country. You and your friends certainly don’t go through these hardships, so why must the rest of Venezuelans go through this humiliation?
Venezuelans won’t take to the streets and risk their lives for your resignation, because we face enough violence every day with the rising rates of homicides, theft, and looting. There is restlessness and generalized chaos. Let’s not forget the high levels impunity, which has been your greatest ally. Your immediate resignation, however, will help your country immeasurably.
We have drones and weapons but no medicine and no food. There are criminals who terrorize the population but no authorities to control them. I wish you made a greater effort to tackle the country’s problems than to target those who think differently. After 17 years of Chavismo, it’s an insult to tell Venezuelans that it’s time to change the economic model and stop relying on oil exports. Admit it, you stole it all. Stop yelling, and act.
Arrogance could end up costing you dearly. Clinging to power just so you can keep telling the rest of the world that you’re president is selfish when so many people are suffering. Not only the sick suffer because of the lack of medicine; mothers suffer when they can’t get any milk for their children, fathers suffer when they can’t make ends meet, the young suffer when they see no hope for progress anywhere in the country.
Your followers live inside a bubble that one day will burst, because the people will only tolerate so much harm. We’ve had enough of your government’s restrictions on the most basic freedoms, such as the right to choose what to eat, what to dress, what to read or think. Who do you think you are to curtail so many lives? If you think about it, you will see that it is best to resign.
Stop playing a strongman character and be human. Your yelling, threats, and insults are of no use to address people’s hunger or illnesses. Posturing does not pay bills and insults don’t cure cancer.
Maybe it is you and your cronies who start rumors to keep the population in fear. Leave malice behind, you have played enough with Venezuelans’ hopes.
At this point, I care little if you were truly born here. But if you have ever loved Venezuela, please resign.
Translated by Daniel Duarte.
*******
Venezuela Is Out of Food: Here’s What an Economic Collapse Really Looks Like
By Daisy Luther
February 14, 2016
Venezuela is out of food.
After several years of long lines, rationing, and shortages, the socialist country does not have enough food to feed its population, and the opposition government has declared a “nutritional emergency.” This is just the most recent nail in the beleaguered country’s slow, painful economic collapse.
Many people expect an economic collapse to be shocking, instant, and dramatic but, really, it’s far more gradual than that. It looks like empty shelves, long lines, desperate government officials trying to cover their tushes, and hungry people. For the past two years, I’ve been following the situation in Venezuela as each shocking event has unfolded. Americans who feel that our country would be better served by a socialist government would be wise to take note of this timeline of the collapse.
A quick review: Why Venezuela Is Out of Food
In 2013, many began to suspect that the outlook for Venezuela was grim when prepping became illegal.  The Attorney General of Venezuela, Luisa Ortega Díaz, called on prosecutors to target people who are “hoarding” basic staples with serious sanctions.
Shortly thereafter, grocery stores instituted a fingerprint registry to purchase food and supplies. Families had to register and were allotted a certain amount of supplies to prevent “hoarding.”
Then, just over a year ago, it became even more apparent that the country was falling when long lines for basic necessities such as laundry soap, diapers, and food became the norm rather than the exception. Thousands of people were standing in line for 5-6 hours in the hopes that they would be able to purchase a few much-needed items.
Shortly after the story broke to the rest of the world, the propaganda machine shifted into high gear.  As the government began to ration electricity, it was announced that this was not due to economic reasons at all, but instead was a measure of their great concern for the environment.
As the situation continued to devolve, farmers in Venezuela were forced to hand over their crops last summer. They assumed control of essential goods like food, and began putting retail outlets out of business. Then, once they had control of the sales outlets, they began forcing farmers and food manufacturers to sell anywhere from 30-100% of their products to the state at the price the state opted to pay, as opposed to stores and supermarkets.
But that wasn’t enough to keep the population fed. (Isn’t it astonishing how much less motivated people are to produce food and supplies when they are no longer allowed to benefit from their hard work? Historically, collectivism and farming have never gone successfully hand in hand.) This January, the government told citizens that they would need to produce their own food. The Ministry of Urban Farming was created to oversee this. While self-reliance sounds great, it isn’t so great in Venezuela. Just so the urban farmers don’t get too self-reliant, a registry of the crops and livestock will be required. (And obviously, they’ve already proven that they have no issue forcing farmers to hand over what they’ve produced.)
Now, it looks like all of the socialist measures and forced food production haven’t been enough to keep the people of Venezuela fed. The country is in so much trouble now that it isn’t possible to cover it up with propaganda.
According to Breitbart.com, lawmakers have learned nothing.
Socialist legislators are hoping to manipulate the initiative in the other direction, and use it to expand government control of private food enterprises. Legislator Héctor Rodríguez has insisted that the economic emergency “does absolutely nothing,” and the government should impose itself on private enterprises. Another socialist legislator, Ricardo Molina, is calling for the government to expropriate Polar, Venezuela’s largest private food corporation: “we have to intervene on private sector enterprises.”
Venezuela previously forced a Polar food distribution center in Caracas to shut down in July, putting 12,000 tons of food, six million liters of soft drinks, and 2,000 jobs at risk.
And now, the announcement of the “nutritional emergency” makes it official. Venezuela is out of food, and it’s only a matter of time before Venezuelans are quite literally starving due to a long series of terrible decisions by their leaders.
Prep before it happens
It’s essential to note as this all plays out that there is little people can do now to rectify their situations. If they aren’t already quietly prepared, they are completely at the mercy of their socialist government.  It is absolutely vital to put back supplies well before the general public is aware that a crisis is pending.
As well, consider the fact that many folks here believe that a socialist government is exactly what our country needs. They eagerly lap up the promises of “free education” and “free healthcare.” They warmly embrace a presidential candidate who is an unabashed socialist. It absolutely astonishes me. They’d be well-advised to pay attention to how well the freebies have worked out in Venezuela. Socialism is not a sustainable economic model, something that has been proven time and time again, much to the detriment of the victims of the misguided notions.
The game pieces here are already lined up to control the American people should our economic situation continue to worsen. For example, there are already laws in place to “prevent hoarding.” Remember a few years ago when President Obama signed an executive order that gives the federal government authority over every resource and infrastructure element in the United States?
There are a lot of uncomfortable parallels that can be drawn between America’s financial situation and the disaster in Venezuela, and one thing is clear: self-sufficiency is the only way to protect your family. Even if you haven’t really begun to prepare, there’s still time to become more self-reliant. Here are some steps you should consider:
Build your pantry: Start purchasing a few extra things every week to build up a food supply to see you through some rough spots. Create a pantry full of healthful, nutritious foods for your family, even if you’re on a budget. (Click HERE to learn how.)
Learn to grow/raise your own food: If you aren’t already growing some of your own food, it’s time to start. While many people believe that they can easily begin farming after the SHTF, it’s not always quite like you may have imagined. Work out the bugs now so that when you are truly reliant on what you raise, you’ll be more likely to be successful. This can be done even on a lot in town – click HERE to learn how.
Stock up on non-food supplies too: It isn’t just food that is in short supply in Venezuela. Be sure you stock up on other necessities too. Here’s a list of non-food items you can stockpile. And if you don’t have a huge budget, don’t worry. Here’s another list of items you can get very inexpensively.
Purchase an emergency food supply: Stock up on long-term storable food that you can stash away. These are the supplies you will rely on if the stores close, and purchasing buckets is the very fastest way to build a food supply when time is of the essence. They are packaged so that you can put them in a storage area and forget them until the day comes that you need them. Add a bucket or two every month to build your supply on a budget, or purchase in quantity to save money and have your supply instantly.
It is vital to practice OPSEC (Operational Security) by keeping your preparedness-related activities on the down low.  Preparedness and self-sufficiency author Tess Pennington warns that in a crisis situation, things you said months or years ago could come back to haunt you.
A person should think twice about telling others about any prepping investments they have made.  If a SHTF scenario occurred, anything said previously can be used against that prepper.  For example, if you tell your neighbor you have silver coins stashed away, if times were desperate enough, that neighbor could turn on you.  Keeping quiet about what one does is second nature to some.  But for others that are new to the idea of prepping, they do not see the whole SHTF picture.  If one person tells another about their preps, one person could tell another person about what preps their neighbor has.  Then, the word spreads throughout; especially when a severe situation occurs.  People will remember what you have told them, and come to you for help (if they are unprepared).  Helping a neighbor or family member in need is a noble deed.  However, those preparedness items are an investment for you and your family; and therefore, no one outside of the family should know what you have (unless you want that person to know). (source)
As people become more desperate, they behave far differently than they would in normal circumstances. You have to be prepared for the day when you might have to defend your home, family and supplies. When an economic disaster strikes, the one thing you can count on from the government is that they will not be prioritizing you and your family. In a situation like the one in Venezuela, you will be completely on your own at best. At worst, your supplies will be targeted “for the greater good.”   Maintain your freedom by becoming quietly self-sufficient.
Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio. Daisy Luther lives on a small organic homestead in Northern California.  She is the author of The Organic Canner,  The Pantry Primer: A Prepper’s Guide to Whole Food on a Half-Price Budget, and The Prepper’s Water Survival Guide: Harvest, Treat, and Store Your Most Vital Resource. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy uses her background in alternative journalism to provide a unique perspective on health and preparedness, and offers a path of rational anarchy against a system that will leave us broke, unhealthy, and enslaved if we comply.  Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter,.
*******
In Venezuela, "Savage Suffering" Takes Hold Amid Frightening "Food Emergency"
Submitted by Tyler Durden
February/13/2016
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been working on some “measures.
“Now that the economic emergency decree has validity, in the next few days I will activate a series of measures I had been working on,” he said Thursday, in a televised statement meant to address a “food emergency” declared by Congress.
The “validity” Maduro references comes from a high court ruling that gives the President expanded powers to tackle a deepening economic crisis that’s left hospitals without medicine and grocery stores bereft of food.
“The controversial move by the Supreme Court, which critics say is packed with supporters of Mr Maduro’s socialist government, potentially sets the scene for a bitter institutional crisis amid claims that the national assembly is being undermined,” FT notes, underscoring the extent to which opposition lawmakers - who in December won 99 of 167 seats that were up for grabs in what amounted to the worst defeat in history for Hugo Chavez’s leftist movement - feel as though last year’s election victory may have been a ruse designed to lend legitimacy to a system that is, and likely always will be, deeply undemocratic.
“This is a tyranny, which has been very successful in disguising as a democracy, and has even allowed itself to lose an election,” Moisés Naím, a former Venezuelan minister and fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said.
Thanks to the Supreme Court decision, Maduro doesn’t need the assembly’s permission to intervene further in business, to allocate funds for imports, and to introduce new capital controls. The opposition is furious and says it will speed up efforts to usurp Maduro once and for all. "In the next few days we will have to present a concrete proposal for the departure of that national disgrace that is the government," opposition leader Henry Ramos told reporters on Friday.
"The Supreme Court of Justice has spoken, its word is holy and must be respected by all parts of society and all institutions," Maduro declared.
With inflation set to soar to over 700% this year, Venezuelans are struggling to persist in the world’s worst performing economy. “I hoped to buy toilet paper, rice, pasta,” 74-year-old Rosalba Castellano, told WSJ. “But you can’t find them.”
“The government is putting us through savage suffering,” she laments.

Of course Maduro blames this “savage suffering” on evil capitalists and the US, which he says is waging an economic war on the country.

In reality, mismanagement on an absurd scale including a rash of nationalizations, out of control spending, and price controls have shrunk the private sector and plunged the economy into outright chaos.

“It goes beyond the crime and economic deterioration,” Leonardo Briceno who spoke to WSJ and runs a Caracas public-relations company said. “It’s imagining a scenario where my daughter needs a medication and we can’t find it. That scares me the most.”



(Venezuelans wait in line to buy food in Caracas)

“The crisis is especially acute in what was once a centerpiece for the socialist country, its health-care system,” WSJ goes on to note. “The country’s leading trade group for drugstores says 90% of medicines are scarce,” and preventable deaths are on the rise. Here’s more:

On a recent day at the University Hospital of Maracaibo, in Venezuela’s second-largest city, patients lay on bare beds in rooms with dirty floors. There was no running water, medicine, cleaning supplies or food. Feces floated in the toilets. Medical staffers there said gang members roam the halls, forcing underpaid and harassed doctors to lock themselves in the offices to avoid assaults.

Venezuela used to export rice, coffee and meat. It now imports all three. It even imports its own bank notes, ordered from European firms and flown in on 747 jets.

The number of private companies in the country shrank by 20% between 2006 and 2014, according to Datanalisis. Multinationals such as Clorox Co. have simply left. Others including Ford Motor Co. and Oreo-maker Mondelez have written down the value of their local businesses to zero.

The crisis is felt not just in Venezuela’s teeming cities but in places like Toas, a tiny island of palm trees and crystalline waters in far western Venezuela, home to just 8,000 people.

Last December, thieves stole 15 miles of underwater power cable connecting the island to the mainland. The theft severed the island’s telephone connections and idled its water pumps.

Fisherman Genebraldo Chacin said his children haven’t bathed or gone to school since then, and they have been eating only one meal a day. His neighbors say the island is close to starvation.

Our food rots without electricity, and it’s sad because it’s so difficult to find food here,” said Mr. Chacin’s neighbor, Sasha Almarza. “When we are able to find any in the store, we eat it all the same day.”

And so on.

As we've documented extensively, Venezuela is staring down an imminent default, despite the fact that the country does in fact try to service its debt. As Barclays noted last month, the country will need to spend 90% of its oil revenue on debt payments assuming $32 crude. Obviously, that's not a tenable proposition.


(note that the headline inflation figure in the right pane is horribly understated)
Thanks to rising imports (as mentioned above) and falling oil sales, the CA deficit has worsened, forcing Caracas to liquidate assets to fund a budget deficit that's projected to hover near 20% of GDP for the foreseeable future.
"Such high inflation has a strong detrimental effect not only on real salaries, but also on income distribution, as the lowest income part of the population tends to have fewer alternatives to protect against inflation," Barclays warns. "This could increase social and political risks, making the current equilibrium increasingly unstable."
Of course there is no "current equilibrium." The opposition was already bound and determined to oust Maduro within six months and now, following the Supreme Court decision to grant him 60 days of emergency economic powers, Ramos says the timeframe for drawing up plans for the President's exit is now "days." Meanwhile, the public may have been unwilling to stage an outright rebellion with inflation at 200%, but at 720% it's difficult to see how things won't careen into outright social upheaval in the not so distant future. Especially once the country defaults and the public comes to realize just how wasteful the government is with what should be a vast store of national oil wealth.
As for what "measures" Maduro is considering to counter the officially declared "food emergency," we'll have to wait and see, but WSJ did give us a hint:
"In response to growing food shortages, Mr. Maduro last month created a Ministry for Urban Farming. He noted that he has 50 chickens in his own home."

*******
*******

Looters target Venezuelan food stores as shortages spark frustration

Fifty-six lootings and 76 attempts reported in the first half of 2015 as frustrated shoppers turn to shoving in lines and stealing goods

Reuters in Caracas

Friday 7 August 2015


Venezuelan supermarkets are increasingly being targeted by looters as lines and prolonged food shortages spark frustration in the nation struggling with an economic crisis.

Shoppers routinely spend hours in lines to buy consumer staples ranging from corn flour to laundry soap, turning lines into venues for shoving matches and frequent attempts to plunder shops.

The economic crisis has hit President Nicolás Maduro’s approval ratings and raised tension levels in the country.
People show numbers written on their arms with the order they should enter at the state-run Bicentenario supermarket in Maracaibo January 11, 2015.

Fifty-six lootings and 76 looting attempts took place in the first half of 2015, according to the Venezuelan Observatory of Social Conflict, which based the figures on media reports and testimony of observers around the country.

On Sunday a small crowd in the western city of San Cristobal pushed its way into the government-run Bicentenario supermarket to grab products after it had closed, leaving staff scratched and bruised, according to the store manager, Edward Perez.

“As we were closing, a group of 20 people unexpectedly started shouting insults at the government and the workers,” said Perez in a telephone interview.

Several looters were arrested after the fracas, which Perez blamed on “ultra-right-wing sectors of the opposition” seeking to sow violence.

Last Friday one man was killed and 60 were arrested in Ciudad Guayana in southern Venezuela after shops were looted.

The government did not respond to a request for comment on the lootings but Maduro calls the shortages and the unrest a product of an opposition-led “economic war”.

More frequent than these serious events are minor melees that ensue when delivery trucks arrive at stores carrying prized products such as chicken or milk.
But the combination of limited official information and exaggerated rumours propagated on Twitter often makes it difficult to distinguish between the two.
Lines have been noticeably longer since the start of the year and especially tense, after last Friday’s clash in Ciudad Guayana.
Josefa Bracho, a 70-year-old teacher in the central city of Barquisimeto, vows not to stand in any more supermarket lines. She was slashed in the thigh with a scalpel after a dispute in a line with women she believed were smugglers.
“We’d been in line for almost four hours when three women got in front of me,” said Bracho in a phone interview.
“I said, ‘What are you doing? Why are you cutting in line?’ Later one came by and cut my leg … standing in line means putting my life in danger.”
Lines are increasingly filled with smugglers who buy subsidised goods and resell them at a profit on the black market or in neighbouring Colombia, generating tension between resellers and those trying to stock their own kitchens.
“There’s no organisation, they treat you like an animal, they don’t respect anything,” said Carmen Neskowi, 49, who identified her profession as “standing in line,” in a queue outside a Caracas supermarket. “It’s an insult.”
Local food producers ranging from neighbourhood bakeries to an industrial pasta maker have halted or slowed operations for lack of raw materials or machine parts.
Obtaining low-cost food and medicine, once the hallmark of the Hugo Chávez era, has become a daily struggle.
The problems, however, have not spurred a broader wave of protests like those led by the opposition in early 2014 that left 43 people dead.
Supporters of the ruling Socialist party note the network of subsidised state-run grocery stores created by Chávez, and financed by plentiful oil revenue, helped reduce poverty and hunger during his 1999-2013 rule.
But the combination of dysfunctional currency controls, limiting Venezuela’s capacity to import, and the end of a decade-long oil boom has left Maduro’s government strapped for cash and struggling to maintain the largesse.
According to polls, his partyis expected to do poorly in legislative elections later this year, its support hit by high inflation, the currency’s collapse and food shortages.

*******
Leaked Government Study Reveals Extent of Shortage Crisis in Venezuela

Report Exposes "Economic War" as Fraud, Says Center for Documentation Director

Sabrina Martín

September 21, 2015


February 2014 was the last time the Venezuelan government released official figures concerning the lack of basic products in the country.

However, thanks to a leaked study conducted by the Office of the Vice President, Venezuelans are now learning their government’s own account of the shortage crisis.

The document, dated August 14 and released by local media on September 16, reveals that at least 15 food items and 26 cleaning and personal-care products are unavailable in Venezuelan stores. In most cases, the shortage rate surpasses 70 percent.

Although the document indicates that it is the 19th such study that the government has conducted in the country, it is the first to have been accessed by the press. Unlike other reports based on surveys and interviews, the data in the government’s report comes from direct observations in 312 establishments across 19 states.
The leaked charts confirm that at least 15 food items are virtually absent from market shelves. Pasteurized fruit juices are the least scarce (43 percent), while fruit compotes lead the shortage list (92 percent).

Furthermore, the study finds that 18 personal-care products are mostly unavailable to Venezuelans. Researchers, for example, could not locate baby diapers in 96 percent of the establishments observed, and only found toothpaste in 58 percent of those stores.

As for cleaning products, all eight of the items that researchers surveyed were found to be scarce in varying degrees. While laundry detergent remains the most widely available cleaning product, with a scarcity rate of 67 percent, dishwasher soap cannot be found in 88 percent of stores.

Researchers also found long lines both inside and outside 67 percent of state-run stores, and 66 percent of private businesses, that they visited.

In February 2015, the Venezuelan government arrested the CEO of supermarket chain Día Día, Manuel Morales, and accused him of provoking the large queues outside his stores amid the growing scarcity problem. However, according to this official government report, the issues involving the shortage crisis and long supermarket lines persist.

Economic War?

The report notes that the Nicolás Maduro administration undertook the study because of the alleged “economic war” that the country’s private sector is waging against the government by hoarding and smuggling goods.
Óscar Meza, director of the Venezuelan Center for Documentation and Social Analysis (Cendas), tells the PanAm Post that the leak proves that the government has avoided disclosing the results of previous studies because they would expose their “failed socialist model.”
According to Meza, the government refuses to publicly recognize that the shortage problem even exists. He adds that studies like this further invalidate the notion of an “economic war,” since they demonstrate that state-run stores are equally affected by the shortage crisis.
Without corrective measures, Venezuelans are set to face “more hunger, hardships, and misery,” Meza warns.
Rising Costs
On top of scarcity issues, Venezuelans must also deal with the rising cost of food. On Thursday, September 17, Cendas reported that the monthly cost of an average Venezuelan family’s basic-food needs rose 19 percent in July.
According to their estimates, a Venezuelan family must earn $65,013.54 Bs. — roughly 8.8 minimum-wage salaries — to cover their essentials.
Cendas also reports that the overall shortage rate in the country reached 36.2 percent in August, and says bread is the latest product to disappear from store shelves. According to Meza, of the 58 products that Cendas studied last month, 49 of them are scarce, including 21 products that are considered basic necessities.
Translated by Rebeca Morla.
*******
Venezuela Reaches the Final Stage of Socialism: No Toilet Paper
By David Boaz
April 5, 2015
In 1990 I went to a Cato Institute conference in what was then still the Soviet Union. We were told to bring our own toilet paper, which was in fact useful advice. Now, after only 16 years of Chavista rule, Venezuela has demonstrated that “Socialism of the 21st Century” is pretty much like socialism in the 20th century. Fusion reports:
Venezuela’s product shortages have become so severe that some hotels in that country are asking guests to bring their own toilet paper and soap, a local tourism industry spokesman said on Wednesday….
“It’s an extreme situation,” says Xinia Camacho, owner of a 20-room boutique hotel in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada national park. “For over a year we haven’t had toilet paper, soap, any kind of milk, coffee or sugar. So we have to tell our guests to come prepared.”
Montilla says bigger hotels can circumvent product shortages by buying toilet paper and other basic supplies from black market smugglers who charge up to 6-times the regular price. But smaller, family-run hotels can’t always afford to pay such steep prices, which means that sometimes they have to make do without.
Camacho says she refuses to buy toilet paper from the black market on principle.
“In the black market you have to pay 110 bolivares [$0.50] for a roll of toilet paper that usually costs 17 bolivares [$ 0.08] in the supermarket,” Camacho told Fusion. “We don’t want to participate in the corruption of the black market, and I don’t have four hours a day to line up for toilet paper” at a supermarket….
Recently, Venezuelan officials have been stopping people from transporting essential goods across the country in an effort to stem the flow of contraband. So now Camacho’s guests could potentially have their toilet paper confiscated before they even make it to the hotel.
Shortages, queues, black markets, and official theft. And blaming the CIA. Yes, Venezuela has truly achieved socialism.
But what I never understood is this: Why toilet paper? How hard is it to make toilet paper? I can understand a socialist economy having trouble producing decent cars or computers. But toilet paper? And soap? And matches?
Sure, it’s been said that if you tried communism in the Sahara, you’d get a shortage of sand. Still, a shortage of paper seems like a real achievement.
*******
Brain haemorrhage
Venezuela’s loss of thousands of oil workers has been other countries’ gain
From the print edition: The Americas
Jul 19th 2014
IN 2003 Venezuela’s then president, Hugo Chávez, fired more than 18,000 employees, almost half the workforce, of the state-run oil corporation, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Their offence was to have taken part in a strike (pictured) called in protest at the politicisation of the company. Their punishment was to be barred from jobs not only in PDVSA itself but also in any company doing business with the oil firm. The axe fell heavily on managers and technicians: around 80% of the staffat Intevep, PDVSA’s research arm, are thought to have joined the strike. At the stroke of a pen, Venezuela lost its oil intelligentsia.
It was a blow from which PDVSA has never recovered. The firm’s oil production has since stagnated (see chart), despite a big run-up in prices. The financial crisis bears some of the blame for that, as does the economic mismanagement of Chávez and, since last year, Nicolás Maduro. But the loss of skilled personnel was a huge handicap, hurting exploration and management. The Centre for Energy Orientation, a Venezuelan NGO, says the number of incapacitating injuries due to accidents at PDVSA rose from 1.8 per million man-hours in 2002 to 6.2 in 2012. At Pemex, Mexico’s state oil firm, the rate was 0.6 in 2012.
Venezuela’s loss was others’ gain. Not all of the former PDVSA employees stayed in the oil business; a minority chose to remain in Venezuela. But thousands went abroad—to the United States, Mexico and the Persian Gulf, and to farther-flung places like Malaysia and Kazakhstan.
Many headed to Alberta, in Canada, where the tar sands yield a residue that is similar to the heavy oil from the Orinoco belt, which Venezuela is struggling to develop. There were 465 Venezuelans in Alberta in 2001; by 2011 there were 3,860.
Pedro Pereira, who once headed PDVSA’s research into the processing of extra-heavy crude oil, came to Canada in order to set up a similar research team at the University of Calgary in Alberta. His work focuses on inventing and patenting new technologies to process Alberta’s crude. Three dozen Venezuelans have passed through the Calgary centre since its inception, around two-thirds of them as a direct result of the purge of 2003. All have gone on to work in the Canadian oil industry.
No country has benefited more from the Venezuelan exodus, however, than one next door. Colombia’s oil output was declining at the time of the purge, falling from 687,000 barrels a day (b/d) in 2000 to 526,000 five years later. Today, average daily production stands at around 1m b/d. Much of this renaissance is thanks to the Venezuelans.
Former PDVSA executives had been heading to Colombia even before the purge. (Luis Giusti, a former chairman who quit as soon as Chávez came to power in 1999, helped the Colombian government redesign its energy policies.) But it was the post-2003 influx that revolutionised the industry. All of a sudden, says Alejandro Martínez of the Colombian Petroleum Association, “Colombia was filled with real oilmen.” The Venezuelans had years of experience, lots of it spent abroad. They had an excellent technical heritage: PDVSA was created in the mid-1970s when the local subsidiaries of sophisticated firms like Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell were nationalised. They were also used to thinking big. “They did not shy away from projects that needed $2 billion in investments when for Ecopetrol [Colombia’s state oil firm] $50m was a big deal,” says Mr Martínez.
In 2007 Ronald Pantín, a former chairman of PDVSA Services, bought Colombia’s Meta Petroleum along with several partners. Meta operated the Campo Rubiales field in central Colombia, from which operators were then barely squeezing 14,000 b/d. Now it is the country’s largest producing oilfield, and Pacific Rubiales Energy, Meta’s owner, is the largest independent oil producer in Colombia. Humberto Calderón, a former Venezuelan oil minister, founded Vetra in 2003. Today the two firms account for more than a quarter of the country’s production.
Without the input of the Venezuelans “there is no way Colombia could have doubled its production in such a short time,” says Carlos Alberto López, an energy analyst. It was an “extraordinary coincidence” that Colombia carried out its reforms just as PDVSA’s managers were thrown out, oil prices soared and areas once under guerrilla control were made safer. “The timing couldn’t have been better,” says Mr López.
The prospects for enticing the diaspora back to Venezuela are poor. The expatriates have put down deep roots abroad, and the situation at home remains chaotic. PDVSA’s goal is for the Orinoco belt to be producing 4.6m b/d by 2019. But the oil is difficult to refine, and the huge investment required is hampered by the government’s insistence on overvaluing the bolívar. So far PDVSA has missed all its intermediate targets for Orinoco: by the end of 2013 it had reached 1.2m b/d, compared with a planned figure of 1.5m.
Welders, electricians and machine workers reportedly make three times as much helping with the expansion of Ecopetrol’s refinery in Cartagena as they can in Venezuela, according to El Nacional, a Venezuelan daily. A ranking published by Hays Oil and Gas, a recruitment agency, put the average annual salary for oil-industry professionals in Colombia at $100,300. In Venezuela it is $50,000. From Calgary Mr Pereira says he is seeing a “second wave” of emigration that began a couple of years ago, of young professionals with five or six years’ experience. “As soon as they get some significant knowledge, they’re leaving,” he says. “The company, and the country, is heading for a disaster.”

*******
Venezuela Enforces Fingerprint Registry to Buy Groceries: What to Do Before Rationing Starts in America
Daisy Luther
April 2nd, 2014
What if you were forced to “register” in order to buy groceries?  And what if, through that registration, the food you bought could be tracked and quantities could be limited?
(Pictured: Amateur photo: Venezuelans line up for miles in an effort to acquire food during hyperinflationary food shortages – March 2014)
That’s exactly the plan in Venezuela right now.  The AP reports that in an effort to crack down on “hoarding” that ID cards will be issued to families.  These will have to be presented before foodstuffs can be purchased.
President Nicolas Maduro’s administration says the cards to track families’ purchases will foil people who stock up on groceries at subsidized prices and then illegally resell them for several times the amount…
Registration began Tuesday at more than 100 government-run supermarkets across the country. Working-class shoppers who sometimes endure hours-long lines at government-run stores to buy groceries at steeply reduced prices are welcoming the plan.
“The rich people have things all hoarded away, and they pull the strings,” said Juan Rodriguez, whowaited two hours to enter the government-run Abastos Bicentenario supermarket near downtown Caracas on Monday, and then waited another three hours to check out.
Checkout workers at Abastos Bicentenario were taking down customers’ cellphone numbers Monday, to ensure they couldn’t return for eight days. Shoppers said employees also banned purchases by minors, to stop parents from using their children to engage in hoarding, which the government calls “nervous buying.”
Rodriguez supports both measures.
“People who go shopping every day hurt us all,” he said, drawing approving nods from the friends he made over the course of his afternoon slowly snaking through the aisles with his oversized cart.
Reflecting Maduro’s increasingly militarized discourse against opponents he accuses of waging “economic war,” the government is calling the new program the “system of secure supply.
Patrons will register with their fingerprints, and the new ID card will be linked to a computer system that monitors purchases. On Tuesday, Food Minister Felix Osorio said the process was off to a smooth start. He says the system will sound an alarm when it detects suspicious purchasing patterns, barring people from buying the same goods every day. But he also says the cards will be voluntary, with incentives like discounts and entry into raffles for homes and cars.
Expressionless men with rifles patrolled the warehouse-size supermarket Monday as shoppers hurried by, focusing on grabbing meat and pantry items before they were gone.  (source)
Last year in Venezuela, it became a crime to “hoard” food, and the country’s Attorney General called upon prosecutors to crack down on “hoarders” by imprisoning them for the “crime”.
Some people may read this and think to themselves, “Why on earth do I care about what happens in Venezuela?”
You’d better care, because this is our future.
Already the Obama administration has moved the pieces into place on the board to be able to appropriate supplies from anyone, at any time.  Mac Slavo of SHTFplan warns:
It should be clear from the laws that are already in effect that the government has given itself a legal pretext for confiscating anything they so choose in the midst of an emergency.
Should an emergency befall the United States, the military, national guard, and local police operating under orders from the Department of Homeland Security will have carte blanche to do as they please.
In a widespread emergency where supply lines have been threatened and millions of Americans are without essential resources because they failed to prepare, the government will swoop in and attempt to take complete control.
They will enter our homes and search them without a warrant. They will confiscate contraband. And they will take any ‘excessive resources’ that you may have accumulated. This includes food, toiletries, precious metals and anything else emergency planners and officials deem to be a scarce material. (source)
Just think how much easier it would be to do so if every purchase you make is tracked and documented for future reference.
How Much of a Footprint Are You Leaving?
Now, think about those “loyalty cards” that every grocery store in North America promotes when you go through the checkout. Have you noticed how much more those are being pushed lately? Could there be a nefarious purpose to that?  I doubt the person at the cash register thinks twice about it – if these actually are data collection tools, it is something put in place by people far higher up the food chain (pun intended) than the staff of your local supermarket.
I strongly recommend you think twice about collecting “points” – the discounts may not be worth it if it means that your stock-up purchases are in some database, easily accessible to the NSA.  If you feel it is imperative to have one of those cards, consider using a pseudonym and false address.  You really don’t want to provide an inventory of your stockpile to the government. Some cards, like the one from Target, for example, even take it a step further and link to your credit card or debit account.  I can’t even wrap my brain around giving out that type of information to the person who rings up my paper towels and garbage bags.
To take this even further, if you haven’t been convinced yet that you need to begin producing your own food by gardening and raising micro-livestock, this should solidify the importance of not being totally dependent on “the system” for what you eat. Looking at the drought conditions across America’s farmland, is it a stretch of the imagination to think we could soon be facing rationing like that which is currently happening in Venezuela?  As the middle class gasps its last breath here in America, we may soon be faced with a situation where only the wealthy can afford to avoid rationing.  By becoming independent from the purveyors of food, you can assure that your family will not go hungry at the whims of a government who really doesn’t care.
Plan of Action
Here are a few things that you can do to pre-empt feeling the effects of a system like the one in Venezuela before such a change occurs on our own soil. Start now to leave less of a footprint for the government to follow.
1.Plant a garden.
2.Grow food indoors in sunny windows.
3.Consider an aquaponics set-up in a spare room.
4.Raise chickens and meat rabbits.
5.Stock up NOW on long-term staples like grains and beans, before limits are instituted.
6.Buy heirloom seeds – lots and lots of seeds.
7.Practice careful OPSEC (OPerational SECurity) when making large purchases.
8.Store longterm food supplies in more than one location. That way if you lose some of your supplies to thugs (government or other varieties), you still have supplies to fall back on.
9.Learn to preserve food.
10.Stock up of preservation supplies like lids, jars, etc.
11.Do NOT use so-called “loyalty cards” or memberships to make large purchases.
12.When ordering large quantities of supplies, consider having them mailed to some place other than your home.
13.Use cash or prepaid VISA cards purchased with cash to make large purchases.
14.Don’t tell others about your supplies and purchases.
15.Teach your children not to discuss things like food pantries and preparedness.
16.Don’t store your supplies out in the open for anyone who comes into your home to see. Stash your 5 gallon pails away in closets, under beds, or in the basement.
17.Disengage from the system by purchasing from small local farmers.
18.Use the barter system whenever possible.  When money was tight and I lived in a place where I couldn’t grow much food, I worked on a farm harvesting vegetables in exchange for produce that I could preserve for my family.
19.Change the way you eat – go with a local, in-season menu that is far more difficult to track than grocery-store purchased items.
20.Learn to forage. Even in the city, you might be surprised at how many things can be found growing in your own back yard or falling off of the trees in a local park.  My children and I picked up one small bag of walnuts a day at a little park down the street one year, resulting in almost 15 pounds of shelled nuts by the time we were through.
Whatever your plan, don’t delay. We need only to read the many articles predicting a food shortage this year due to poor weather conditions to see the writing on the wall. You must become responsible for your family’s sustenance if you don’t want to suffer at the hands of those in power. I have no intention of standing in line for hours with my “ID card”, only to be allowed to purchase a small amount of highly inflated food.
*******
A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez
By Geri Smith   
March 11, 2010
Caracas - It's 10 a.m., and tempers are already flaring at the Cada supermarket in Caracas' San Bernardino neighborhood. The store has just taken delivery of two pallets of 4- and 11-pound sacks of sugar. With dozens of shoppers swarming around him, Rigoberto Fernández tries to pass out the bags one by one. The clerk hands a smaller one to a gray-haired woman, but she flings it back. "How dare you tell me I can't have one of the larger bags?" she screams. The sack splits open, spilling sugar everywhere.
Within 10 minutes, the shipment has vanished. "I am so fed up with these food shortages," Fernández mutters as he sweeps up the mess. "People get desperate and start behaving like animals."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's response to the food shortages: find a scapegoat, in this case supermarket owners. On Jan. 17, the mercurial leader expropriated six Exito stores, controlled by France's Groupe Casino. A month later he seized Cada, another Casino chain, with 35 supermarkets and eight distribution centers.
El Presidente's efforts to transform his country into a Cuban-style socialist state are sputtering. With its vast oil wealth, Venezuela shouldn't suffer from shortages, yet inefficient farms, government takeovers of supermarkets, and a 50% currency devaluation in January have thrown the food supply into disarray. That's bad news for Chávez, whose anti-capitalist message and ceaseless drive to undermine U.S. influence in Latin America have made him Washington's biggest headache in the region. Chávez's approval rating among Venezuelans has dropped to about 45% from 70% three years ago.
Supplying low-cost food to the poor has been a centerpiece of Chávez's presidency. He has expropriated food processors, stores, and more than 6 million acres of farms and ranches, convinced that the government can feed Venezuela better than the private sector does. Under state ownership, though, production has suffered. From 1999 to 2008, per capita, sugar cane was off by 8%, fruit declined by 25%, and beef production dropped by 38%, according to Carlos Machado, an expert in agriculture at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies, a business school in Caracas. "The cooperatives have failed and our cattle ranching has been decimated," Machado says.
While Chávez was flush with oil profits, it was easy to take up the slack with purchases of chicken from Brazil, beef from Argentina, and powdered milk from New Zealand. Food imports jumped from $1.3 billion in 1999, when Chávez took office, to $7.5 billion in 2008—about 70% of what Venezuelans eat. But falling crude oil prices and last year's 3.3% contraction of the economy left Chávez with less money to buy food abroad, or to prop up poorly run state farms and food processors. Government officials "think they know how to run businesses, but they just run them into the ground, just like they're running the country into the ground," says 47-year-old homemaker Antonia Rangel, one of the shoppers who managed to get a bag of sugar at the Cada store.
"SOCIALIST MEGASTORES"
A new consumer protection law, which went into effect on Feb. 1, allows Chávez to expropriate virtually any company if he deems it to be in the national interest. Exito's alleged misdeed: raising food prices following the January devaluation (though two months later, on Mar. 9, the government authorized stores to boost prices on some basic goods by as much as 35%). Chávez wants to transform the chain's outlets into what he calls "socialist megastores" that sell food, appliances, and clothing with virtually no markup. "The measure is one further step in the Venezuelan state's policy of transforming capitalism into socialism," Chávez declared on his weekly Hello President TV show. Exito's parent and the government haven't disclosed any details on compensation.
The supermarket seizures have alarmed grocers, but few are willing to speak publicly for fear of more harassment. "This is one of the worst times we've ever lived through," says the CEO of a major supermarket chain. "We live in constant fear that we could be shut down or taken over by the government."
Chávez has been skirmishing with supermarkets for years. In 2002, big food producers and distributors participated in a two-month nationwide work stoppage that nearly brought the economy to its knees. In response, Chávez opened a rival network of government-run grocery stores, where more than a quarter of Venezuelans now shop.
The biggest state-owned chain, Mercal, has 16,600 outlets, ranging from street-corner shops to huge warehouse stores. They employ 85,000 workers selling basic products such as rice, sugar, and beans at prices as much as 40% below those the government sets for private stores. Mercal also has a fleet of trucks that serve street markets, and it offers free lunches and afternoon snacks at 6,000 soup kitchens. "Mercal is a very noble mission that contributes to a higher quality of life for Venezuelan families," says Carlos Alonzo Sánchez, manager of a busy Mercal store near El Junquito, a vast hillside shantytown on the outskirts of Caracas.
Joelis Muñoz recently carted 9 pounds of sugar, 7 pounds of rice, and 4 1/2 pounds of corn flour home from Sánchez's Mercal outlet. Her bill was $4.88, half what it would have been at a private supermarket. "Since the government opened these stores, my family hardly ever goes to regular supermarkets anymore," says the 21-year-old single mother.
CHEAP CHICKEN
The state-run stores serve as a platform for Chávez's revolutionary message. In the middle-class California Norte neighborhood of Caracas, an outlet of a second government-controlled chain called PDVAL (owned by state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA) offers frequent reminders about the source of the bounty. At the entrance, a banner proclaims: "Food Sovereignty! All power to the people!" A few feet down the first aisle, a placard reminds shoppers that the "government is fighting for your food security." Says Luis Pedro España, a sociologist at Andrés Bello Catholic University in Caracas: "It's quite clear to anyone who shops at state-run stores that they owe it all to the President, who brought cheap chicken to the people."
Sometimes, however, there aren't any cheap chickens to sell. The PDVAL store offers tomato sauce from Spain, nutritional drink mixes, and cans of tuna at regulated—but not subsidized—prices. On a recent Friday, though, there's no chicken, beef, or sugar. To fill empty shelves, the store has stocked an entire aisle with nearly 1,000 bottles of cooking oil made by a company the government took over two years ago. Another aisle is filled with hundreds of bags of corn flour. A third is jammed with industrial quantities of dried oregano and curry powder.
When scarce products do arrive, word spreads fast and long lines form. "I can only let one or two people in at a time so things don't get out of control," says Omar Gálvez, manager of a small Mercal outlet in Petare, a rough Caracas slum.
Supplying Venezuelans with cheap chicken isn't cheap. Félix Osorio, Chávez's Food Minister, oversees Mercal from a spacious office filled with paintings, handicrafts, and other gifts from constituents. Osorio, a 40-year-old Army lieutenant colonel, says the government will spend $605 million this year on food subsidies, plus $1.8 billion to run the Mercal system. "Food is a basic necessity, and not mere merchandise," Osorio says, munching on a midnight snack of white cheese and fried beef empanadas after a long day in the field. "The capitalists," he says, "don't see it that way."
Even so, the government knows it can learn something from the people it frequently calls "squalid capitalists." Taking control of the Exito and Cada supermarkets makes sense, Osorio says, because the government needs more expertise in large-scale retailing. The authorities are negotiating with Groupe Casino and may allow the French company to stay on as a minority partner to help keep the chain running smoothly. Casino declined to comment.

SUDDEN SHUTDOWNS
The capitalists, though, face constant oversight. Members of Cuba-inspired "community councils," or neighborhood watch groups, can make unannounced inspections to look for signs of hoarding. One executive from a nationwide chain grouses about constant visits from tax authorities, the consumer protection agency (to check prices), workplace safety inspectors, and even the National Guard, which monitors store hours to make sure they don't stay open too long and use too much electricity at a time of widespread blackouts. Even when no infractions are found, the executive sighs, "The inspector can say, 'It doesn't matter, I have orders to shut you down for 24 hours,' and he does it—just like that."
Supermarket managers estimate that the government regulates prices on about 20% of the items they sell, but these products account for up to 40% of volume. "We make zero profit on most of the regulated foods, so we have to make up for it by charging more for other goods," says Carlos Hernández, manager of Los Campitos, a small grocery in Caracas' upscale El Rosal neighborhood. And at Exito and Coda stores, says one executive, the government seems intent on eliminating any possibility of turning a profit. "How are they going to replace freezers and forklifts as they wear out?" he asks.
Supermarket owners are watching how the government manages Exito, renamed Bicentenario in honor of this year's 200th anniversary of Venezuela's independence from Spain. Since the takeover, sales have sagged, according to Sintesis Financiera, an economics consultancy. Now suppliers concerned over delays in payment appear to be slowing deliveries, prompting Chávez to warn 60 companies that they may be expropriated if they fail to double deliveries to the chain.
With legislative elections scheduled for September, the fiery President is likely to continue cracking down on food retailers. Although he doesn't face another presidential vote until 2012, he's determined to hold onto his party's majority in the National Assembly. Chávez has won the loyalty of poor Venezuelans with his food subsidies, but as inflation erodes spending power, that support is flagging. After climbing by more than 15% annually from 2004 to 2009, consumption has started to fall, Central Bank data show.
As supermarket owners fret about further expropriations, Venezuelans increasingly say socialism isn't the right path. In a poll by researcher DATOS taken two weeks after the Exito seizure, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of Chávez's takeover of stores. Another DATOS survey found that 86% don't think Cuba is an appropriate model for Venezuela. Chávez "is moving in the opposite direction from what people say they want for their country," says DATOS director Joseph Saade. "People look at everything the government has taken over and they're seeing that the companies have become dysfunctional."

*******
Also See:
A Better Way? Barter System vs. National Currency!
26 December 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/12/better-way-barter-system-vs-national.html
and
Food Shortage, Then Anarchy!
25 July 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/07/food-shortage-then-anarchy.html
and
What to Expect when the Economic Collapse Occurs!
17 May 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/05/what-to-expect-when-economic-collapse.html
and
Disasters Happen! Be Prepared!
(Part 1)
31 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/disasters-happen-be-prepared.html
and
(Part 2)
30 August 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/08/disasters-happen-be-prepared-part-2.html
and
The Collapse of the Entire World’s Economic System has Begun!
18 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-collapse-of-entire-worlds-economic.html
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
27 February 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/02/economic-collapse-how-did-we-get-here.html
and
Are We Facing a Global Financial Crisis?
31 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/are-we-facing-global-financial-crisis.html
and
Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse! (Part 1)
31 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse.html
and
(Part 2)
20 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 3)
25 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 4)
17 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 5)
23 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 6)
23 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 7)
30 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/xxxx.html
and
(Part 8)
23 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/debt-dynamite-dominoes-coming-financial.html
and
(Part 9)
28 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 10)
13 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 11)
29 April 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 12)
28 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 13)
04 April 2012
(Part 15)
02 November 2012
and
Recession? ... Depression? ... What is Going On?
and
Chavez, Venezuela, & Socialism
02 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/chavez-venezuela-socialism.html
and
Are Suspicious 'Suicides' Really Government Murders?
(Part 2)
25 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/are-suspicious-suicides-really.html
and
Are there Changes in Store for Venezuela?
08 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/are-there-changes-in-store-for-venezuela.html
*******

Canadian Dollar is Collapsing!

$
0
0

*******

Canadian Dollar Will Drop To HALF A CENT! - What You Need To Know
Published on Jan 18, 2016
As experts claim the Canadian dollar will hit 59 cents or less, there's no sign it will stop falling. Jeff Berwick (The Dollar Vigilante) says 2016 will be a bloodbath. Legendary author G. Edward Griffin gives the dollar 2 years at the most until its inevitable collapse.
In this video, WAM's Josh Sigurdson meets with economist and author John Sneisen to talk about the coming economic collapse and how experts are not telling the whole story. John Sneisen predicts that the Canadian dollar will hit half a cent in value and from there of course collapse.
As the worthless IOU paper money is printed and people lose confidence in the dollar, inflation rates become rapid and interest rates become more of a tax than anything as they hit negative numbers. As central banks and central economic planners plunge the dollar's value in nearly every country in the world, the fact that the Canadian dollar is doing so much worse than the useless American FIAT dollar says a lot. As people lose confidence (rightly so) in the Canadian dollar, it will continue to plunge and we'll see something similar to what happened in the Wiemar Republic back in 1923 Germany. We're already seeing a mimic of what was happening in 2007 directly before the recession, but because of the build up of debt since, this crash will be far more dangerous.
Though, the idea still stands for some unknown (most likely economically illiterate) reason that if you keep trying to build on the dollar and save it as well as raise a debt ceiling of sorts, you're going to save the dollar. This is untrue. Temporarily it can be saved, but only for it to crash even harder later on. We still have a temporary band-aid economic system from wartime that reigns over us as it's centralized and pushes us all into debt slavery. Of course this is what the government wants and this is what the central banking cartel wants.
What we need to do is allow the system to collapse and build it up naturally as individuals and allow the free market which currently doesn't exist to flourish as it has successfully in the past before being manhandled.
Since China printed the first IOU paper currency back in 1024, history has shown this method to be dangerous to a society and its people. It doesn't work and never has for long periods of time. It has only led to debt, inflation and devaluation.
We thank John Sneisen for giving us this prediction and warning. He gave us solutions as well which have been proven to be sound for thousands of years.
You can find John Thore Stub Sneisen's book "The End of Freedom: How Our Monetary System Enslaves Us" on Amazon! You can also find more of him at The Economic Truth. Check out Freedom Force International if you wish to get involved in an initiative fighting this collectivism!

*******

Fall of Canada Prepare Yourself
Published on Dec 8, 2015
*******
Canadian Dollar Forecast To Fall To 59 Cents U.S. As Economic Clouds Darken
The Huffington Post Canada    |  By  Daniel Tencer  
Posted:  01/13/2016
Imagine a Canadian dollar that’s worth little more than half of a U.S. dollar.
It may have been a seemingly unthinkable scenario just months ago, but with many analysts now predicting US$20-a-barrel oil, that prospect for Canada's oil-linked dollar is now on the horizon.
Macquarie Group analyst David Doyle is predicting the loonie will fall to 59 cents U.S. by the end of this year, due to the ongoing commodity price slump, weak manufacturing and a heavily indebted Canadian consumer.
Bloomberg Business calls Doyle the top forecaster of the Canadian dollar. He was among the first to predict a 70-cent loonie.
A 59-cent dollar would be nearly three cents below the loonie's all-time low of 61.79 cents U.S., in January, 2002.
The Canadian dollar has fallen from more than 83 cents U.S. a year ago to less than 70 cents U.S. on Tuesday. (Chart: xe.com)
Doyle’s forecast follows the loonie’s dive to below 70 cents U.S. on Tuesday, the lowest level the currency has seen since the spring of 2003.
He is among a growing number of analysts who now predict the Bank of Canada will cut interest rates again to stimulate the economy, perhaps as soon as next week. That would increase the spread between U.S. and Canadian interest rates, putting further downward pressure on the loonie.
The likelihood of a cut is growing because Canada’s economic situation appears to be darkening. Economic growth stalled in the fourth quarter of 2015, and a new Bank of Canada survey suggests hiring intentions in Canada are at their worst level since the financial crisis of 2008-09.
“You could imagine the situation is worse today than in the 1990s,” Doyle said earlier this week, referring to the last time the loonie saw a prolonged decline.
“We’re much more dependent on oil now than we were in the past.”
The produce section is seen in a Metro grocery store in Quebec City, March 4, 2009. Fruit and vegetable prices have risen by 9 to 10 per cent over the past year, and more price hikes are expected as the loonie falls. (Canadian Press photo)
The loonie’s fall is expected to have a positive impact on Canadian exports in the long run, as it makes Canadian companies more competitive in the global marketplace. But in the short run, such a steep decline in the loonie will likely mean pain for consumers, who can expect to see substantial hikes in prices of imported goods, including staples like fruit and vegetables.
Oil prices rose more than 2.5 per cent in early trading Wednesday, after falling for most of the trading sessions since the start of the year. West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for North American oil, was trading at $31.21.
But Canadian oilsands product sells at a discount the WTI price, and was trading at around $16.60 at the end of the last trading session.
*******
Cool Currency
Australian Dollar
FUN FACT: Australia was the first country in the world to have a complete set of banknotes made from plastic, which helps protect from counterfeiting and general wear.
Egyptian Pound
FUN FACT: Egyptian notes are different shapes and sizes based on the denomination and include watermarks and metallic threads for enhanced security.
French Polynesian Franc
FUN FACT: The colorful, floral notes of French Polynesia feature depictions of the land and the native people.
Maldives Rufiyaa
FUN FACT: The Maldives, made up of over 1,100 islands in the Indian Ocean, exchange colorful rufiyaa as currency. Each banknote depicts a bunch of coconuts and the traditional Dhivehi Odi, a type of boat used for inter-island transport.


Swiss Franc
FUN FACT: Each brightly-hued Swiss Franc includes two stunning portraits of various cultural icons. Security features include a "tilt effect" which allows the note's denomination to only be seen at an unusual angle.
Hong Kong Dollar
FUN FACT: Hong Kong's currency includes colorful paper and polymer notes. The notes include eight security features, most of which are visible to the naked eye.
South African Rand
FUN FACT: South African banknotes feature the "big five" animals of the country, which include the lion and elephant.
Honduran Lempira
FUN FACT: The lempira note from Honduras is named after a 16th century ruler that led the resistance against Spanish conquistadors.
New Zealand Dollar
FUN FACT: New Zealand has also adopted the use of polymer notes and recently redesigned all of its notes to reflect distinct cultural aspects of the country. The $10 note (pictured) includes an image of the endangered blue duck.
Canadian Dollar
FUN FACT: Canada is the latest country to begin issuing polymer notes. Unfortunately, according to the Toronto Star, the bills shrink under extreme heat.
*******

Will Donald Trump be the Next President? (Part 2)

$
0
0
*******
Obama arrogance propels Trump to presidency
It’s time for the followers of Republican hopefuls to coalesce around an ABH (Anybody But Hillary) 2016 presidential campaign slogan
By  Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives
March 1, 2016
Barack Obama has just handed on a silver platter to Republican front runner Donald Trump his biggest break to date; one guaranteed to propel The Donald to the 2017 presidency.
And just to think that it comes via the New York Times from an indiscreet Democrat ‘Inside the Clinton Team’s Plan to Defeat Donald Trump’.
“...President Obama has told allies he would gleefully portray Mr. Trump as incapable of handling the duties of the Oval Office.” (New York Times, Feb. 29, 2016)
As Donald Trump has been able to whoop after the impressive outcome of each and every caucus, likely including the big ones today: Woo-Hoo!
Gleeful is what millions of Americans and a watching world will be when Trump knocks Obama’s screechy heir apparent from her lofty perch come November 8.
That ‘The Clinton Team’s Plan to Defeat Donald Trump’, would be totally laid bare by the NYT is downright laughable.
“This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen advisers, strategists and close allies of the Clintons, including several who have spoken directly with Mr. Clinton. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss strategy publicly.”
Now that they did, let’s hope Trump’s campaign is going through the article line by line.  Watch your back, Mr. Trump, they’re poring over your business portfolio, looking for scandals to erupt.
For starters, Temper Tantrum Twins Hillary and Bill Clinton intend to expose Donald Trump for his temper.  Wow! The media’s already doing that and it hasn’t made any difference to Trump’s soaring popularity.
Here’s the Clintons’ coming Big Boom strategy in a nutshell:
“That strategy is beginning to take shape, with groups that support Mrs. Clinton preparing to script and test ads that would portray Mr. Trump as a misogynist and an enemy to the working class whose brash temper would put the nation and the world in grave danger. The plan is for those themes to be amplified later by two prominent surrogates: To fight Mr. Trump’s ability to sway the news cycle, Mr. Clinton would not hold back on the stump, and President Obama has told allies he would gleefully portray Mr. Trump as incapable of handling the duties of the Oval Office.” (NYT)
In the temper tantrum category all Trump is (mercifully) missing is Hillary’s trademark screech and dog bark.
“Democrats say they risk losing the presidency if they fail to take Mr. Trump seriously, much as Republicans have done in the primary campaign.” (NYT)
Are you reading this, GOP Establishment?
“The case against Trump will be prosecuted on two levels,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster and Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist in 2008. “The first is temperament,” and whether he is suited to be commander in chief, Mr. Garin said, echoing conversations that have dominated Democratic circles recently. The second “will be based on whether he can really be relied on as a champion for anyone but himself.” (NYT)
Millions of disenchanted, 8-year-long disenfranchised Americans, who see Trump as their champion, beg to differ.
“The greatest weapon against Mr. Trump, the Clintons believe, is his tendency to make outrageous, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential. During the most recent Republican debate on Thursday, Mr. Trump traded schoolyard taunts with his rivals and threatened to build an even bigger wall on the Mexican border because he did not like a rebuke of his original wall proposal by a former president of Mexico.” (NYT)
From out of only yesterday’s screechy past comes a Hillary who now declares that Americans needed only more “love and kindness”.
“In South Carolina and Tennessee, Mrs. Clinton began to lay the groundwork for what advisers call “a campaign against bigotry,” in which she will present herself as the fair-minded foil to Mr. Trump. She declared that Americans needed more “love and kindness.”
“Instead of building walls,” she has started to say, “we need to be tearing down barriers.” (NYT)
Americans saw no “love and kindness” from Clinton’s Secretary of State boss for more than seven long years.  All they saw was a country deliberately pushed into decline, and its citizens branded as bigots, racists, and as gun and Bible clingers.
Talk about “barriers” needing tearing down!
“During the Republican debate on Thursday, the Clinton campaign posted an image on Instagram that said, “These are not American values: Racism, sexism, bigotry, discrimination, inequality.”
Mr. Trump emphatically denies being bigoted, saying he is simply not “politically correct.” But he has already signaled that he would be vicious against Mrs. Clinton. He said that she should be indicted for her use of a private email server as secretary of state and that Mr. Clinton’s extramarital affairs were “fair game” in the election because they were an “abuse of women.” (NYT)
“The plan has three major thrusts: Portray Mr. Trump as a heartless businessman who has worked against the interests of the working-class voters he now appeals to; broadcast the degrading comments he has made against women in order to sway suburban women, who have been reluctant to support Mrs. Clinton; and highlight his brash, explosive temper to show he is unsuited to be commander in chief.”
So the wife of womanizer Bill Clinton will try to use the misogynist label against Trump to lure “suburban women” to vote for her.
Clinton calls them suburban.  They call themselves working women, wives and mothers.
In truth, Hillary is as antiquated and as outdated as all Women’s Lib organization.  Today’s women look out for themselves and don’t need the hypocritical protection of women’s’ libber Hillary Clinton, who can legitimately add a second ‘l’ to the one that already spells “Liar”.
One thing for sure: No matter what he says out on the campaign trail, Donald Trump will never sink lower than Hillary Clinton did when she said, “What difference at this point does it make..” as she was testifying before the Benghazi hearings.
Those fateful words will stand as the ones most degrading to women of all time.  Ask any one of the mothers of the four courageous Americans left to die in Benghazi on Clinton’s devastating watch as Secretary of State.
It’s time for the followers of Republican hopefuls to coalesce around an ABH (Anybody But Hillary) 2016 presidential campaign slogan.
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
*******
Why a Rock-Ribbed Conservative Like Me Supports Donald Trump 100%
As for me, I'm as conservative as it gets, but Conservatives have failed me and our country. I'm counting on Mr. Trump to fix what's been broken, to keep our country safe and employed and on the road back to a spectacular recovery!
By  Joan Swirsky -- Bio and Archives 
February 19, 2016
I’m watching the fierce South Carolina primary contest among the six remaining candidates for POTUS and a few things strike me as astounding.
The first is that all the seasoned politicians on stage—Governors Bush and Kasich, Senators Cruz and Rubio—have been relegated to straggler status by the non-politician in the race, billionaire businessman Donald Trump. (Dr. Ben Carson, the other non-politician, is hanging in there but not lighting any fires).
Second is that only Mr. Trump is raising the biggest issues facing our country, among them:
•Closing our borders, which are being flooded with un-vetted illegal aliens who number, by now, into the millions
•Bringing both corporations and jobs back to America
•Fixing our Mt. Kilimanjaro of debt and Mt. Everest of unemployment
•Strengthening our military
Third is that he is challenging our longtime and ridiculous policy of military intervention for the purpose of nation-building in exchange for…nothing! Why haven’t we taken our enemy’s oil or exacted other prices for the blood we’ve spilled and the honor we’ve spent?
Fourth is that he is saying out loud what most Americans have been thinking and feeling for almost eight years, specifically that as a result of our thunderously ineffective “leadership,” we have utterly failed to destroy ISIS and the other Islamic terrorists who spend every waking hour figuring out how to obliterate America, which they call “the great Satan,” and our staunchest ally, Israel, “the little Satan.”
ISIS has about 50,000 adherents, maybe even 75,000. In one week, the American military could obliterate this murderous sect from the face of the earth. But Barack Obama seems to have a peculiar aversion to fighting the enemies of America, hence the rise of this homicidal cult and the escalating threat it poses to our country.
And fifth is the degree to which Mr. Trump is already negotiating with both domestic and foreign leaders. He is letting American politicians know that deals can and will be made but that all of them must benefit America! And he is telling the entire world that the vacation that overseas leaders have had from true American leadership will be over the very second he enters the Oval Office.
All the while, Mr. Trump’s competitors and critics carp and whine about his “bluster,” “naiveté,” and “crudeness.” Wasn’t President Teddy Roosevelt accused of bluster? Wasn’t President Ronald Reagan accused of being naive? Wasn’t the liberals’ hero LBJ accused of crudeness? These are trifling criticisms, as are the accusations that Mr. Trump is “not a true conservative” and that in the past he was, gasp, a liberal. Well, we’ve given the self-described conservatives the entire House and Senate and they’ve failed us, so it’s time to give a born-again conservative a chance!
Once in office, I have full confidence, Mr. Trump would glassify ISIS into oblivion, take the oil they’ve stolen and give it to the families who have been destroyed by these psychotics. He would overturn and replace Obamacare in record time, build an impenetrable wall in record time to keep out the swarms of illegals who, again, Mr. Obama seems fatally attracted to. He would get rid of a half-dozen or more bloated government departments, reduce the tax code to
less than 25 pages, and overturn all the Executive Orders Mr. Obama has inflicted on the nation in his eagerness to bypass the U.S. Congress and spit on the U.S. Constitution. Most important, Mr. Trump would immediately build up our military and promptly reverse the preposterous, Obama-dictated Rules of Engagement (i.e., don’t shoot unless the other guy shoots first).
How do I know this? Because I come from a business background where people actually get things done! Where executive decisions are made decisively, political correctness is considered the silly indulgence of people with too much time on their hands, accountability is the order of the day, and outcomes are regularly measured to gauge success—all of which is the polar opposite of how our government works, which is why both Mr. Trump and the American people hold our government and its current leadership in such contempt.
Those who point to Mr. Trump’s business failures purposely fail to mention the personal courage and financial risks it takes to pursue new, bold, entrepreneurial ventures, or the resilience it takes to weather failure, to rebound, and to go on to even greater heights. They also forget that a man who heads an incredibly successful organization with over 20,000 employees, who surrounds himself with talented experts, and who does business in dozens of countries (including Mexico, Canada, Mumbai, Philippines, Dubai, Turkey, Panama, et al) knows better than any of his rivals—in fact, better than any politician—how to run a complex bureaucracy, and a tight ship!
The political criticisms Mr. Trump has been receiving from the establishment wonks at National Review, Rupert-Murdoch’s puppets at Fox News, the hysterical and frenzied Republican National Committee, and leftists all over the place, are from people who operate in the rarefied and self-congratulatory realms of academia, the media, and of course Washington, D.C.—including the politicians who go out for drinks every night with the lobbyists they depend on to support their reelection campaigns and pay them enough to live quite richly in retirement. In common parlance, they’re known as whores!
That same American public, through their earnest efforts, managed to elect a Republican-controlled Senate and House in the 2014 midterms, only to realize that the people they elected have caved in to every Marxist initiative of the Saul-Alinsky-driven regime in power. We’ll never know to what degree threats, intimidation, and bribes played in this craven capitulation, but Americans finally understand they’ve been betrayed—hence the overwhelming support for a candidate who is absolutely impervious to bribes, threats, and intimidation.
TRAITS
There are certain qualities I’m looking for in the next president of the United States, which I can sum up in the acronym TRAITS.
Track Record
I want the next POTUS to have an impressive track record of accomplishment, not simply a laundry list of rosy promises. Now that Mr. Trump has effectively quashed the rest of the competition and is ahead by double digits in the South Carolina primary contest to be held on Saturday, February 20th, he may just run the table. Unlike everyone else in the race, he has run a gigantic corporation with immense success, a business that has required him to deal with titanic problems.
As Steve Cuozzo has written in the New York Post, long before The Donald considered running for president, he had already helped save New York City by being “New York’s most important and bravest real-estate developer.”
And Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka remarked recently to Breitbart, “From day one, my father set the agenda for what the whole party is talking about.”
That is called Leadership!
I trust that Mr. Trump will come into office on Day One with the world’s biggest broom!
Appearance
I remember watching theJFK-Nixon debates in the presidential contest of 1960. It was the first presidential debate of the fledgling TV era and it had a profound effect on the entire country.
Previous televised hearings about organized crime were held by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) in 1950 (the year my family actually bought our first TV), and about the infiltration of Communists into our government and military (sound familiar?) held by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) in 1954.
JFK was a dashing and articulate Harvard graduate, and Nixon a sort of awkward, looking-for-the-right-word graduate of Whittier College, whose wife Pat was slim, blond and beautiful, as were his two young daughters. But who on earth could compete with Jackie, the breathy, willowy, gorgeous 30-year-old who had graduated from the tony Miss Porter’s School, Vassar College, and the Sorbonne, and had two adorable babies?
All the glamour of the Kennedys was featured in print by besotted newspaper editors across the country, and blared on TV by leftist anchors at the three networks that existed at the time: CBS, NBC, ABC. All of them, of course objectively, touted the always-intriguing ingredients of youth, glamour, sexiness, romance, scandal, and wealth of the “Camelot” couple. And guess who won the presidency?
However, it turned out that Kennedy, who had been in the Senate for seven years—longer than Obama, Cruz, or Rubio—was not as equipped as his rival Nixon would have been to deal with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961, which strengthened the position of the Communist Fidel Castro’s leadership and his relationship with USSR, and the disastrous Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which was the closest the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.
In that era, Kennedy’s appearance proved to be just that, appearance.
Appearances still matter and certainly Mr. Trump and his family are amazingly glamorous, appealing, photogenic and wealthy. And his worldly business experience supersedes and eclipses that of his rivals by light years. Also, the billionaire mogul looks presidential! He’s big, like America. He’s bold, like our Founders. And he’s masculine, not one of the sissified, metro-sexual men of today who have been cowed into tiptoeing through the tulips of political correctness, too afraid to say what they think for fear of offending the perpetually aggrieved, oh-so-sensitive, hothouse-flower special-interest groups among us.
Who can forget when right out of the gate, Mr. Trump said he would close the borders and ship all the illegal aliens back to where they came from, including anchor babies? When a self-important reporter told him that the “anchor baby” term was offensive, Mr. Trump said, “That’s what I say, anchor babies.” Slam dunk.
That is called Leadership!
Ideas
Barack Obama came into office intent on turning our country into his childlike utopian version of social-justice paradise, the better to cut down to size what he and his far-left cronies believe is the big, bad colonialist power known as the United States of America.
Using the Cloward-Piven strategy, outlined in 1966, to bankrupt the country through gargantuan expenditures, Obama increased welfare costs (through the importation of millions of illegal aliens), increased our debt to $19-going-on-$20-trillion, and financed a great number of phony-baloney schemes like Solyndra, which received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009 and then went broke in 2011. Ever wonder into whose now-bulging pockets all those millions went?
In contrast, Mr. Trump came on the scene and immediately said he would stop the tsunami of illegal aliens crossing our border by building a fence that Mexico would pay for! He then cited the Muslim jihadists and their carnage in San Bernardino and said he would immediately suspend all Muslims coming into this country until the U.S. Congress figured out what was going on.
That is called Leadership!
True Patriot
A Gallup poll of February 7th indicates quite persuasively that America is overwhelmingly conservative. The poll,wrote Bruce Walker in the American Thinker, reported that the number of states “in which conservatives outnumber liberals has been as low as 47 states and as high as 50 states. This ought to be a very big story, but Gallup, like nearly every other polling organization, tilts left ideologically.”
That’s exactly what people and pundits say about Mr. Trump, that he tilts left ideologically. So how can a rock-ribbed conservative like me possibly support him?
Simple! I gave birth to my first child when I was 18. Right there and then, practically when I was still lying on the delivery room table, I knew what my job was. It was not to give my beautiful little boy the most nutritious meals or the best education or a fancy home or the shiniest tricycle. It was to keep him safe! Without safety, everything else is moot. In fact, more than moot, non-existent! If you’re not safe, nothing else matters.
And here comes Mr. Trump, a non-politician, who gets it, who deeply understands that if we don’t close our borders and continue to let un-vetted aliens into our country, we are de facto not safe!
And how is the safety of our country secured? Only through the overwhelming strength of our military and local and national law enforcement agencies, which the current occupant of the Oval Office has systematically tried to decimate, right up to this month, when he issued an order—in keeping with his fetish about the hoax of global warming—that no military action can be taken without first assuring that no harm comes to the environment. Hard to believe, but true.
To compound the stupidity of this policy, consider that former CIA director, Michael Morrell, recently admitted that concerns about contaminating the environment have prevented the White House from bombing oil wells that finance the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which Barack Obama calls ISIL, the “L” standing for Levant, an area that includes Israel. Translated: Obama—as we know by now—considers Israel the enemy!
STRENGTH
Before he formally announced his candidacy in June 2015, Mr. Trump attended the Iowa Freedom Summit the previous January, where he received a standing ovation when he said that he could “make this country great again.”
He said he believed that “any credible American foreign policy doctrine should be defined by at least seven core principles”:
1.American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
2.Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
3.Only go to war to win.
4.Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
5.Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
6.See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.
7.Respect and support our present and past warriors.
That is strength…that is Leadership!
Don Fredrick, the creator of The Complete Obama Timeline, says that “the establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win…you can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, America loses.”
Former Navy SEAL and writer Jim O’Neill says that “Trump is a true-blue patriot…” He cites Harlem Pastor James Manning who says that Trump speaks truth to power. Trump “knows full well that Big Business, Big Media, Big Banking, and Big Government are all in bed together,” O’Neill adds, “and like no other major political figure that I can recall from my lifetime, he calls them on it. His love for the United States is obvious, deep-seated, and true.”
As for me, I’m as conservative as it gets, but Conservatives have failed me and our country. I’m counting on Mr. Trump to fix what’s been broken, to keep our country safe and employed and on the road back to a spectacular recovery!
Joan Swirsky is an award winning author and journalist. Her work can be found at joanswirsky.com
Joan can be reached at joanswirsky@gmail.com
*******
Pope Who Lives Behind Giant Walls Says Trump’s Wall Is Not Christian
By Paul McGuire
February 19, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
As a Christian I am deeply troubled by Pope Francis, who lives in Vatican City, which has the most restrictive immigration and citizenship policies in the world, and accuses presidential candidate Donald Trump of “not being a Christian” for wanting to build a wall to protect the American people. First of all, the Pope is protected by a private army and lives safely behind far bigger walls than Trump plans to build.
Jesus Christ said “judge not, that you be not judged.” Pope Francis said in answering a question about Donald Trump that "a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian." One can only assume that Pope Francis does not understand that Donald Trump is acting on the Bible’s commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” by wanting to build a wall to protect law abiding Americans of all ethnic groups and nationalities from crime, terrorist infiltration, and economic destruction. The Pope fails to understand that “building a wall” is an act of love because in order for us to “love our neighbors as ourselves” we must first keep them alive and safe, along with making it possible for them to earn a decent standard of living so they can feed, clothe and house their families.
Vatican Wall
Not building a wall to protect the American people is an act of selfishness, allowing peace and security only for the very wealthy like the Pope who has a private army and lives in a secure and somewhat restricted area, along with movie stars, politicians, and the super-rich bankers and corporate CEOs. By not building a wall our political leaders make it possible for terrorists to come across the border and slaughter men, women, and children or potentially detonate a nuke in an American city. Is it Christian or loving to not protect people from evil?
Building a wall insures economic stability so that Americans of all races and
even mothers of small children are not forced to work two jobs to provide for their families due to low wages caused by the labor surplus, which is caused by unrestricted legal and illegal immigration. Is it love to force mothers, fathers, and single women to work multiple jobs so that they have no time to spend with their children? Is that real love?
Of course we should have compassion for those who are less fortunate, but the question is how do we really help them? I do not hear Pope Francis speaking out against the corruption in Mexico and other Central and South American nations, which is causing people to flee their nations and come across the border. Pope Francis accuses Donald Trump of not “building bridges” but instead “building walls,” which implies that he is unloving and selfish and thus not Christian. But to truly love our neighbors as ourselves our actions should actually help our neighbors, whether in our nation or nations across the border, with economic plans that allow them to break free from poverty and become prosperous. This is exactly what Donald Trump is proposing: economic solutions which actually will increase wealth, jobs, and opportunities for the common man. That is love in action.
Conversely, Pope Francis advocates economic solutions based on socialist and Marxist principles which have never solved the problem of poverty in any nation where they have been tried. In fact, the socialist economic solutions Pope Francis has proposed have increased poverty and suffering in every nation where they have been tried, without exception.
Jesus Christ said “we are to judge a tree by its fruit.” What Trump is proposing, including building a wall, both protects people and alleviates economic suffering by giving ordinary men and women the opportunity to improve their lot in life. What Pope Francis is proposing simply brings all men and women, with the exception of the one percent at the top, to a far lower standard of living, which increases human suffering. I am not going to judge the validity of the Pope’s faith, but I can judge the merits of Donald Trump’s economic proposals, and what I see is love in action. By advocating policies that will improve the standard of living for people on both sides of the border and protect them from crime and terrorism Donald Trump (whatever his private beliefs may be) is applying Christian principles to government.
© 2016 Paul McGuire - All Rights Reserved
Paul McGuire: radio talk show host, author, feature film producer and television commentator.
Paul McGuire is the author of 22 books, such as the best-selling, The Day the Dollar Died and Are You Ready for the Microchip? Paul is the host of the syndicated television show, The Paul McGuire Report. Paul McGuire hosted the nationally syndicated talk radio show, "The Paul McGuire Show" for 10 years. Paul McGuire is a television commentator and has been a frequent guest on the Fox News Network and CNN.
Paul is the producer of two science fiction films in Hollywood. The History Channel did a 2-hour special with Paul McGuire entitled Seven Signs of the Apocalypse. Paul has interviewed numerous world leaders, Presidents and Prime Ministers. Paul lives in Los Angeles, California.
At fifteen years old, Paul was demonstrating with radical activist Abbie Hoffman and made an honorary member of the Black Panther Party. However, while studying Altered States of Consciousness at the University of Missouri, Paul had a miraculous experience hitchhiking in a remote area similar to the movie Field of Dreams. Paul re-thought his socialist and humanist world view and rejected it as completely false. Paul has devoted his life to communicating truth to people.
Website: PaulMcGuire.us
*******
In going after Trump’s Christianity is Pope on Obama duty?
It appears that Obama may have built the not-Christian bomb, then passed it to Pope Francis to hurl it
By  Judi McLeod -- Bio and Archives
February 19, 2016
Was Pope Francis out on ‘Obama Duty’  when he declared that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is not a Christian?
On Tuesday, Feb. 16 Obama stated that Donald Trump would never be president.  On Thursday, Feb. 18 came the pontiff’s pronouncement that Trump is not Christian.
The timing of both is as suspicious as the untimely death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
US President Barack Obama has dismissed the possibility of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump being elected president, saying Americans are too “sensible” to elect him. (PressTV, Feb. 17, 2017)
(But not too “sensible” not to have twice elected him.)
“I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president,” Obama said on Tuesday at a news conference in Rancho Mirage, California after a meeting with southeast Asian leaders.
“And the reason is that I have a lot of faith in the American people. Being president is a serious job. It’s not hosting a talk show, or a reality show,” he added.
But being ON talk and reality shows between rounds of golf is okey-dokey.
It appears that Obama may have built the not-Christian bomb, then passed it to Pope Francis to hurl it.
Why is the Pope, whose job it is to save souls, entering—in so bombastic a manner—the American presidential election campaign?
“Trump has accused Mexico of sending rapists and drug runners across the United States’ southern border and has vowed if elected president to build a wall to keep out immigrants who enter illegally.” (Yahoo News, Feb. 18, 2016)
Pope Francis, who told reporters in a conversation on his flight home from a visit to Mexico, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” seems to have left all bridges leading to the Vatican wide open.
Affronted Trump Christian supporters came on the run to scale Vatican walls, laying bare the hypocrisy that the Vatican, more than anywhere else on earth, is surrounded by walls and also happens to have the most restrictive immigration/citizenship policies of any nation world-wide.
How’s that for being Christian?
The Donald got it right when he told the Fox Business Network last week, “The pope is a very political person ... I don’t think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico.”
You can say that again, Mr. Trump.
And as for the pontiff seeming to be on Obama Duty by weighing in on the American presidential race, it should be remembered how Francis is reported to have gained papal power:
‘Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI. (National Catholic Register, Sept. 24, 2015)
“At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.
He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.
Meanwhile, you don’t have to have the blessing of either Pope Francis or President Barack Obama to qualify as a Christian.
Only God Almighty retains the right to proffer that Blessing.
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
*******
Pope Slimes Trump Agitates for Open Borders
The liberation theology-loving pontiff thinks America is evil for having a border
By  Matthew Vadum -- Bio and Archives
February 19, 2016
Francis injected himself into the 2016 election yesterday by blasting Republican frontrunner Donald Trump as “not Christian” for promising to build a wall along the southern border to keep illegal aliens out of the United States.
These inflammatory comments from a pampered absolute monarch who lives in a walled fortress protected by armed Swiss Guards came after his anti-American publicity stunt at the U.S.-Mexico border careened out of control—and they were soon answered by Trump.
They also came days after Trump criticized the pope for planning to visit the border to promote lawlessness. The presidential candidate said Francis didn’t understand “the danger of the open border we have with Mexico.” He added, “I think Mexico got him to [visit the border] because Mexico wants to keep the border just the way it is because they’re making a fortune and we’re losing.”
Although Vatican City, recognized as a sovereign nation, has very strict immigration controls, Francis spent Wednesday afternoon blasting U.S. immigration policy and condemning capitalism during a mass strategically located near the fence that separates Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso, Texas. He previously hoped to make an even bigger spectacle of himself by walking in solidarity with other aliens across the border, but U.S. officials nixed that plan.
At the service Francis honored “migrants who have perished trying to reach the United States just a stone’s throw away.” The pope also blessed crosses beside “shoes of migrants who died,” adding “No more death! No more exploitation!”
Sounding like a Marxist community organizer, Francis blamed U.S. immigration policies for causing a “humanitarian crisis” and declared that “the flow of capital cannot decide the flow of people.”
The pope erected a cross in memory of border crossers who have died invading the United States.
Francis is preoccupied with radical left-wing ideology, not empirical facts
He said these people took:
“A step, a path filled with terrible injustice, enslavement, kidnappings, extortion. Many of our brothers are the fruits of the business of human trafficking. We cannot deny a humanitarian crisis, which in recent years has seen the migration of millions of people.”
Columnist Ben Shapiro was having none of it:
“The reason for the humanitarian crisis driving people north is the corrupt anti-capitalist governance so common to Latin America – the same sort of governance the pope believes is apparently more godly than the capitalism drawing people like a magnet to the United States. So the same system the pope decries is the system the pope wants inundated with victims of those who oppose that system. How ironic.”
Francis, a Jesuit from Argentina, has thrown his lot in with anarchists, anti-nationalists, neo-communists, and the radical libertarians of the open-borders movement who cry that the existence of borders in themselves is fundamentally unjust. Christians and communists are the same, Francis has also said. Communists are closeted Christians who “have stolen our flag.” This pope has even formed political alliances with the community organizers of the activist Left in the U.S., Obama administration officials, and radical activists like Naomi Klein, a college dropout and Red diaper baby whose mother made documentaries about Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky.
Francis is preoccupied with radical left-wing ideology, not empirical facts.
Anyone with eyes knows that the proliferation of capitalism over the past two decades has lifted a billion people out of dire poverty—and in coming decades is projected to rescue another billion from pauperism—but Francis robotically slams global capitalism, or “globalization” as the Left calls it, foolishly blaming markets for poverty. Markets, not handouts, accomplish humanitarian feats that the Bishop of Rome’s church could never, ever hope to match.
Francis embraces liberation theology, which Shapiro calls “essentially a mashup of Christianity and Marxist redistributionism—a theology in which capitalists must be blamed for the world’s ills and then forced to absorb all of its problems.”
Shapiro writes:
“All of this would appall Pope John Paul II, who said, ‘This conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth does not tally with the church’s catechism.’ Pope Benedict XVI said liberation theology was a ‘singular heresy’ and ‘fundamental threat’ to the Catholic Church.”
On the flight back to Rome after the five-city visit to Mexico, a reporter asked a question that allowed the papal mudslinging to begin.
Trump described Francis as “a political man” and “a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics,” the Reuters scribe said. Trump, he noted, has promised to construct 2,500 kilometers of wall along America’s southern border and deport 11 million illegal aliens.
“Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus,’” His Holiness quipped.
“At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. ... I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that.”
Trump fired back.
“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened,” the real estate mogul said.
“For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he added.
This kind of conflict between the church and American politicians was inevitable.
Saul Alinsky, who infiltrated many Catholic parishes in his day, would definitely approve of Pope Francis
Like plenty of Protestant denominations, the Catholic church in the U.S. has been overrun by radical left-wingers.
The ACORN-loving Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), the charitable arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is politically extreme and anti-American to its core. CCHD is aggressively pro-open borders and American Catholic bishops have conducted plenty of their own publicity stunts at the U.S.-Mexico border urging the United States to let in anybody who wants to come to America.
Long mocked as the “Catholic Campaign to Help Democrats,” the charity funds the Industrial Areas Foundation, which was founded by Saul Alinsky, and other dangerous Alinsky-inspired groups including the Gamaliel Foundation and Direct Action and Research Training Institute (DART). CCHD has funded voter drives benefitting politicians who support un-Catholic causes such as abortion-on-demand. In his career as a community organizer, Barack Obama worked on at least one project underwritten by CCHD.
The current pope’s radicalism, which some Roman Catholics say merely constitutes adherence to the church’s so-called social justice teachings, is nothing new in the world of Catholicism.
Alinsky, who infiltrated many Catholic parishes in his day, would definitely approve of Pope Francis.
Matthew Vadum, matthewvadum.blogspot.com/, is an investigative reporter at a watchdog group in Washington, D.C.
His new book Subversion Inc. can be bought at Amazon.com (US), Amazon.ca (Canada), and as an e-book at Kobo (Canada).
Visit the Subversion Inc. Facebook page. Follow me on Twitter.
Matthew can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
*******
Anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-illegal Pope slams Trump: Trump replies…
A mountain of gold and massive walls let you determine someone elses faith?
By  Robert Laurie -- Bio and Archives
February 18, 2016
You may know Pope Francis as the religious leader who lives behind these walls:
(photo below) He’s also proven himself to be anti-American, anti-capitalist, pro-illegal immigration, and surprisingly willing to coddle fascists of the Islamic variety.
Maybe, as the New York Times reports, that’s why he seems so eager to weigh in on Donald Trump - going so far as to denigrate the would-be President’s faith.
ABOARD THE PAPAL AIRLINER — Inserting himself into the Republican presidential race, Pope Francis on Wednesday suggested that Donald J. Trump “is not Christian” because of the harshness of his campaign promises to deport more immigrants and force Mexico to pay for a wall along the border.
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico.
Trump posted the following response on his website:
If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.
The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story - he didn’t see the crime, the drugtrafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.
I’ll be the first to admit that Trump’s reply is a bit clunky, and I don’t know what’s really in his heart with regards to Christianity.
However….
I’ll also argue that Pope Francis has - at almost every opportunity - expressed his disdain for free market economies and has exposed himself as (at best) a socialist and (at worst) a corporatist.  Somehow, in the span of 30 years, the Vatican went from fighting communism with a free market capitalist to embracing the tenets of its old enemy.
...And again, its leaders rest their heads atop a mountain of gold hidden behind this:
Pope Francis has said that “At least I am a human person.” I’d argue that this simple statement renders him utterly unqualified to determine what sort of faith resides with the heart of Donald Trump. Humans can suspect, they can doubt, but they can’t know. If Trump is shamelessly lying, that’s between him and God.
Francis has been running around the world, siding with an ideology that spent the entirety of the 20th century aligning itself against the church he allegedly leads.
With that in mind, how dare he question the faith of anyone?
Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.
*******
Super PAC Against Trump: "If It Bleeds We Can Kill It"
By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
February 11, 2016
© 2016 NewsWithViews.com
A former deputy manager for the Romney for President campaign, who is now a devout Rubio supporter, Katie Packer, has made it her primary mission to thwart Republican front-runner Donald Trump's nomination for President of the United States. In fact, Ms. Packer is credited with saying: If it bleeds we can kill it, obviously meaning Trump's presidential ambition.
And it’s not a coincidence that Parker is linked to a mysterious Super PAC with ties to current GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio and her old boss Mitt Romney who are promising the Republican Party's so-called establishment they will end the Trump juggernaut in South Carolina.
The Mitt Romney-linked Super PAC is telling donors and supporters that there is an all-out war to prevent the New York real-estate magnate Trump from getting the Grand Old Party's nomination to run against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
The anti-Trump effort is called the "Our Principles PAC" and is believed to be chaired by Ms. Packer who reports directly to the former Massachusetts governor who lost to Barack Obama in 2012.
Katie Packer’s chief complaint regarding a Donald Trump candidacy is that he is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Ironically, she served on the campaign team in 2011-12 for the arguably chief architect of Obamacare, Gov. Mitt Romney, who ran as a Northeast Republic a/k/a moderate. Her opponents claim it is almost comical to hear her now complaining that "The Donald" isn’t a real conservative.
Packer is being supported by a number of GOP bigshots, including John McCain, in order to try to form a steady barrage of anti-Trump messages that will ultimately turn voters against the New York billionaire no one can buy.
Packer has also admitted she supports Marco Rubio, but says she is not affiliated with the Rubio campaign.
For example, Packer had her minions send out obviously dishonest pamphlets before the primary in New Hampshire. The mailing claimed Donald Trump was anti-Second Amendment despite his being given an award by a police firearms organization.
And while Packer has repeatedly refused to identify the people financing her Super PAC, which has already spent $2 million in Iowa. She now is preparing to spend millions more before the primary in South Carolina. Because of her links to wealthy GOP backers, it isn’t difficult to guess that her former boss Mitt Romney is expected to endorse Marco Rubio.
As previously reported in NewswithViews.com, the GOP's political establishment has gone as far as advocating violence against their own party's front-runner. Pat Brady, the co-chairman of the John Kasich for President Campaign, said in an interview that the only way to beat Donald Trump is with a “head shot,” a term used to describe a single-bullet killing. Once he realized the ramifications of what he said, Brady then claimed that his head shot comment regarding Trump wasn't referring to a literal gunshot to the head.
Not to be outdone by Brady, Republican political consultant Rick Wilson appeared on MSNBC and was more direct when he said the GOP political establishment has to “put a bullet” in Trump’s head
According to conservative firebrand and Trump supporter Ann Coulter, "FOX News is ignoring these death threats against Donald Trump. Disgusting." And NRA firearms instructor Rick Smith noted, "Never thought it would be possible, but Fox now makes MSNBC look like a professionally run news media [organization]!"
Please, click on "Mass E-mailing" below and send this article to all your friends.
© 2016 NWV - All Rights Reserved
*******
Why the Globalists Hate Donald Trump
Part 1
By Doc Marquis
December 5, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
“Hail Queen Hillary! Hail Queen Hillary!” Ah, yes. This would be the rallying cry for those on the uber-left if they have their way in one year once the general elections are held in November, 2016. They would enthrone their queen in the White House as she would place her hand upon a Bible (while lying through her teeth) and take the oath of office to the Presidency of the United States of America. And what type of Queen/President would they have? Well, so far we know that:
1) Hillary lied when she said that “all” her grandparents were immigrants. Obviously she felt it necessary to lie so that she could garner the immigration vote. I’m still trying to figure out how “illegal” immigrants can “legally” vote in our great nation.
2) Hillary lied when she was chiming along with Obama that the Benghazi debacle was due to a video that had been put on YouTube. But for her, I’m sure “It doesn’t really matter”!
3) Hillary lied when she claimed her and Bill had left the White House dead broke when Bill was the President. I guess she needed to align herself with the “common folk” so she could gather their votes for the upcoming Presidential election.
4) Hillary lied when she stated “she came under sniper fire” while visiting Bosnia. In fact, her daughter Chelsea was with her and had received a bouquet of flowers from a little girl. I guess she needs to bring in the military votes to help her win.
5) Hillary lied and consistently changed the narrative about her emails. And even though 58% of American don’t believe she’s trustworthy, 38% says she is. Perhaps she also needs to bring in the votes for those poor delusional people who believe she has the integrity and veracity of a saint.
6) Hillary lied when she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who was the first person to have successfully climbed Mt. Everest on May 29, 1953 as gift to Elizabeth, the newly enthroned Queen of England, even though she was born and named over 6 years before he had accomplished such a Herculaneum feat. It appears she needs to bring in the vote of those with short memories also.
To sum it up, those on the uber-left would enthrone someone who has been in the forefront of politics for over 25 years who is a serial liar! As a Born-Again Christian who believes every word of God is true (let’s recall the 8th Commandment) having a serial liar as a President just doesn’t set in well with me.
Many, many folks believe that if Hillary is enthroned as the wannabe Queen, that she would follow the same mandates as her would-be predecessor, Barack Obama. Well, why not? What would be wrong if Hillary fashioned her wannabe Presidency after Barack Obama? Volumes could be written on that disaster alone! Aside from the fact Obama lied on the campaign trail when he said:
1) “I will remove earmarks for PORK projects before I sign any bill.”
2) “I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”
3) “I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN.”
4) “I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”
5) “I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration.”
6) “I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”
7) “I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”
This was but a small sampling of Barack Obama’s lies while on the campaign trail. On this level Obama and Hillary are in total agreement with Adolf Hitler when he said: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
What has any of these things have to do with Donald Trump running for President? The Globalists, the 1% of the 1%, have a 7 part plan, an agenda that is being used to create their New World Order and, whereas Obama has been following their plans for almost 7 years now and, going by her rhetoric, Hillary would follow it also, Donald Trump would not. Allow me to demonstrate
In my series “Frontmen of the Illuminati”, DVD 13: “Dictators of the Illuminati” (Figure 1), I had proven that Barack Obama has been following a 7 part plan towards the creation of a New World Order as had other historical dictators, to the letter, such as: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. If you want to understand the Obama administration and all of its activities, you must understand the 7 part plan of the Illuminati towards the creation of a New World Order as we had thoroughly examined within DVD 13: “Dictators of the Illuminati”.
Another reason the Global Elitists hate Donald Trump and do not want him as President, is because they would not be able to control him. Why? Because they have nothing to offer him that he doesn’t already have or couldn’t acquire. Understand, the reason that the Global Elitists, the Illuminati, have such vast power and reach over the world is because of three things: their money, their politics and their religion. And they will give anyone power, money and fame so long as they do exactly what they (the Illuminati) tell them to do. It’s a sad testament upon the human race but, most people would jump at being given power, money and fame.
Donald Trump is a billionaire; he’s worth approximately 10 billion dollars. So, Donald couldn’t be controlled with promises of money.
Donald Trump is a name recognized around the world. Therefore, no one could offer him fame or glory since he has had such for over 30 years now.
Donald Trump is a businessman and NOT a politician and NEVER wants to be. He can’t be coerced with political gain or glory.
Donald Trump is a wild card the Global Elitists hate, revile and fear. They fear him more than they hate him because they won’t be able to control him with any of their usual methods. Donald Trump is man of the people and the people are quite fed up with politicians never fixing anything but still finding more than enough time to tell everyone what they should be doing.
Some of what Donald Trump has publicly proclaimed he would do if he were elected President are:
1) He would fix our borders
2) He would fix our economy
3) He would fix our infrastructure
In the 2016 Presidential election, we don’t need another politician pretending to be a man of the people when they’re really a man of the Global Elitists. We need a businessman! We need a man with the experience and backbone to “fix America”. And Donald Trump is uniquely and highly qualified to fulfill those promises that were just listed. A politician does not have such qualifications as Donald Trump.
Some may say, “Well, that’s building and construction things; what about matters of politics?” Well, Donald Trump was in a meeting a couple of days ago with a little bit more than 200 black Pastors who grilled him for about two and a half hours.
Naturally, the black question was being asked. After that meeting, the Pastors had noted that Donald Trump was passionate, spoke honestly from his heart, sincere and that he was comfortable speaking with them. Everyone emerged feeling that many, many good things had been accomplished and many stated that they would endorse Donald Trump. Others, as they should being that they’re Pastors, stated they would pray to God and go by His guidance.
Donald Trump is not someone the Global Elitists want as their next President. Donald Trump is not someone who wants to curry favor with the likes of Obama or Hillary. Donald Trump cannot be coerced with promises of money, power or fame. But Donald Trump is a man of the people. Since June 2015, when he first announced his bid for the Presidency, there has been around 130 different polls and in each of them, Trump has led the pack. And with any poll the numbers have gone up and down. Still, Donald Trump leads the pack.
Now, the big question is, will the GOP elect him as their candidate to run for the Office of the President of the United States of America? I fear that many in the GOP will do everything they can do to stop him. Many of the GOP are doing the will of the Global Elitists so Donald Trump is doomed to an uphill battle but, that has been the life of Donald Trump. In the face of adversity is when he’s at his best. Donald Trump shines best when he’s under pressure and persecution.
2016 will prove to be one of the most interesting Presidential years in American history. Will Hillary, a 25 year serial liar become the next President? Will the GOP try to derail Donald Trump? And, if they do, will he run as an independent then and become the 45th President of the United States? Ladies and Gentlemen, consider most carefully the course in which you want this GREAT country of ours to go. Our collective fates and the fates of your children and grandchildren rest upon you. What type of future do you want to leave them? What type of country do you feel they deserve? Remember, your vote will determine what you deserve to get! God keep all of you!
Part 2
By Doc Marquis
December 11, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
Let me say from the onset that there was not supposed to be a Part 2 to this article. But after the rampant stupidity I have seen in the media today my evil twin “Skippy” came out and has had it.
I am an “Independent” when it comes to elections. I will not vote along party lines. I vote for whom I am convinced is best qualified to do whatever the job is. That being said I am convinced that the GOP is either willingly stupid, uneducated or hiding certain historical facts! The second President of the United States of America, John Adams, is credited with saying: “One useless man is called a mistake. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a Congress”. And I have had it up to here with this Congress!!!
Today’s media have lambasted Donald Trump because he would not allow Muslims into America until Congress figures out “What the hell is going on!” The media have said, of Mr. Trump that:
1- He’s Islamiphobic
2- The Constitution doesn’t allow for what Donald Trump wants to do
3- Is an unachievable idea
4- Is not what America’s is all about
5- Does not reflect American values
6- Newly elected Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said: “This does not reflect what the GOP is all about.”
On and on the diatribes flew off in 360 degrees along with most people’s memories and common sense. This old high school teacher will now give all of you a lesson you deserve!
In the late 70’s President Jimmy Carter (a DEMOCRAT) faced what is now known as the Iranian Hostage crisis. American hostages were being held by Iran as hostages and, Jimmy Carter in a speech called: “Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions” (April 7, 1980), to sum it up, stated the following:
1) A number of orders were signed that put pressure on Iran
2) IRANIANS WERE BANNED FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime
3) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General INVALIDATED ALL VISAS ISSUED TO IRANIAN CITIZENS FOR FUTURE ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
4) NEW VISAS WOULD NOT BE ISSUED except for humanitarian reasons
5) OVER 50,000 IRANIAN STUDENTS WERE GOING TO HAVE THEIR VISAS TERMINATED AND HAVE ALL THOSE SAME STUDENTS SENT BACK HOME AMERICAN AND AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE BEING HELD HOSTAGE AND IN AN UNDECLARED STATE OF WAR!!!
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AMERICA HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF WAR SINCE 9/11. And it’s high time SOMEONE stand up and declares that fact and do something about!
Once again, it appears that people’s memories are short-lived or vague. We tend to believe that this Radical Islamic problem has been around ONLY since 9/11. Let’s, vicariously, go back to the 70’s and travel that road back up to present date. Here are the headlines as they appeared back then which happened in America:
1) April 14, 1972: “Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.”
2) January 19, 1973: “Muslim extremists rob a sporting goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the alarm.”
3) July 1, 1973: “An Israeli diplomat is gunned down in his driveway by Palestinian terrorists.”
4) July 18, 1973: “Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.”
5) October 19, 1973: “Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.”
6) October 29, 1973: “A woman is shot repeatedly in the face by Nation of Islam terrorists.”
7) November 25, 1973: “A grocer is killed in the store by Nation of Islam terrorists.”
8) December 11, 1973: “A man is killed by Nation of Islam terrorists while using a phone booth.”
9) December 13, 1973: “A woman is shot to death on the sidewalk by Nation of Islam terrorists.”
10) December 20, 1973: “Nation of Islam terrorists gun down an 81 year old janitor.”
11) December 22, 1973: “Nation of Islam terrorist kills two people in separate attacks on the same day.”
12) December 24, 1973: “A man is kidnapped, tortured and decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.”
13) January 24, 1974: “Five vicious shooting attacks by Nation of Islam terrorists leave three people dead and one paralyzed for life. Three of the victims were women.”
14) April 1, 1974: “A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.”
15) April 16, 1974: “A man is killed while helping a friend move by Nation of Islam terrorists.”
16) March 9, 1980: “Hanifi” Muslims storm three buildings including a B’nai B’rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.”
17) July 22, 1980: “A political dissident is shot and killed in front of his home by an Iranian agent who was an American convert to Islam.”
18) August 31, 1980: “An Iranian student guns down his next door neighbors, a husband and wife.”
19) November 6, 1989: “A seventeen year old girl is stabbed to death by her parents for bringing ‘dishonor’ to their family by dating an ‘infidel’ African-American.”
20) January 31, 1990: “A Sunni cleric is assassinated in front of a Tucson mosque after declaring that two verses of the Quran were invalid.”
21) November 5, 1990: “An Israeli rabbi is shot to death by a Muslim attacker at a hotel.”
22) January 25, 1993: “A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.”
23) February 26, 1993: “Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.”
24) March 1, 1994: “A Muslim gunman targets a van packed with Jewish boys, killing a 16-year-old.”
25) March 23, 1997: “A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State Building where he shoots seven people in a Fedayeen attack.”
26) April 3, 1997: “A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim.”
27) March 17, 2000: “A local Imam and Muslim spiritual leader guns down a deputy sheriff and injures his partner.”
28) September 11, 2001: “Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually almost 3,000 are killed as a result of this terrorists attack on America (a.k.a. 9/11).”
29) September 11, 2001: “Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers reportedly steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.”
30) September 11, 2001: “Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.”
31) March 19, 2002: A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.”
32) May 27, 2002: “Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.”
33) July 4, 2002: “Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.”
34) September 5, 2002: “A 55-year-old pizzeria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.”
35) September 21, 2002: “Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.”
36) September 23, 2002: “A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.”
37) October 2, 2002: “Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.”
38) October 3, 2002: “Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15 hour period.
39) October 9, 2002: “A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.”
40) October 11, 2002: “Another man is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.”
41) October 14, 2002: “A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.”
42) October 22, 2002: “A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.”
43) August 6, 2003: “After undergoing a ‘religious revival’, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4 inch butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.”
44) December 2, 2003: “A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.”
45) April 13, 2004: “An angry Muslim runs down five strangers with a car.”
46) April 15, 2004: “In an ‘honor killing’, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.”
47) June 16, 2006: “A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.”
48) June 25, 2006: “Saying that is was ‘Allah’s choice’, a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.”
49) July 28, 2006: An ‘angry’ Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.”
50) February 13, 2007: “A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine’s Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.”
51) January 1, 2008: “A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their ‘Western’ lifestyle.”
52) July 6, 2008: “A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an ‘honor killing’.”
53) February 12, 2009: “The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.”
54) April 12, 2009: “A man shoots his brother-in-law and another man to death after finding out that they visited a strip club, in contradiction to Islamic values.”
55) June 1, 2009: “A Muslim shot a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.
56) October 2, 2009: “A woman dies from injuries (October 20, 2009) suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too ‘Westernized.’
57) November 5, 2009: “A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah. (Remember this one: Obama and others called this ‘Workplace Violence’ at an Army Fort).
58) December 4, 2009: “A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for ‘persecuted’ Muslims.”
59) April 14, 2010: “After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to ‘take them back to Allah’ and out of the ‘world of sinners’.
60) April 30, 2011: “A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.”
61) February 7, 2013: “A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.”
62) March 24, 2013: “A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.”
63) April 15, 2013: “Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as ‘very religious’ detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and several more to lose their limbs while hundreds more were injured (the Boston Marathon Race Bombings).”
64) April 19, 2013: “Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.”
No one and nothing has been done about the growing threat of “Radical Islam” in America. Obama won’t do anything; he loves his Islamic buddies. The Congress is clueless right now. Paul Ryan stated that the GOP doesn’t support the views of Donald Trump when it comes to “Radical Islamics”. All of the GOP presidential hopefuls have offered up nothing viable and the Democratic runners for the next Presidency are using their critical, monosyllabic diatribes of Donald Trump without offering up even one viable solution themselves.
Since Donald Trump “supposedly” is wrong in his analysis and solution to the “Radical Islamic” problem as the Presidential frontrunner, the only other solution would be to go to the Democratic side of the coin for the solution. And, the front running Democratic, wannabee Presidential hopeful is none other than Hillary Clinton.
During Bill Clinton’s two term presidency, Bill and Hillary had more “gates” swinging than a Texas corral. If it wasn’t a sexual scandal it was a political or “dirty dealing” scandal. However, the one thing that caused me serious concerns more than anything else was how many friends of theirs died while Bill and Hillary were running the country. And since so many folks want Hillary (because she’s entitled to the Presidency), let’s take a look at the “last time” she was in the White House.
The Clinton Body Count:
1- James McDougal: The partner of the Clintons who was convicted over the Whitewater scandal, suddenly dies of a heart attack.
2- Mary Mahoney: One of the interns at the White House who was murdered in July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. She was murdered right before she was going to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3- Vince Forster: He was the White House counselor and colleague of Hillary at the Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. He died from a gunshot wound to the head and it was ruled a suicide.
4- Ron Brown: Rob was Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who died in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in Ron Brown’s head that resembled a gunshot wound. During the time of his death, Brown was going to cut a deal with prosecutors over another scandal. As interesting was the fact that a few days later the Air Traffic Controller committed suicide.
5- C. Victor Raiser II: A major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992. Questions about “donations” to Bill’s campaign were about to be investigated.
6- Paul Tulley: Paul was the Democratic National Committee Political Director that was found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock in September 1992. Clinton described him as a “dear friend and trusted advisor”.
7- Ed Willey: Clinton fundraiser, Ed was found dead in November 1993 deep in the woods of Virginia of a gunshot wound to the head; ruled a suicide. Interestingly Ed died on the same day his wife Kathleen claimed Bill Clinton had groped her in the oval office. Plus, Ed was also involved in many of the Clinton’s fund raising events.
8- Jerry Parks: Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock, Jerry was gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside of Little Rock. His son stated that his father was building a dossier against the Clintons.
9- James Bunch: he died from a gunshot suicide. It was also reported that James had a little “Black Book” of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10- James Wilson: Reported to have had ties to Whitewater, James was found dead in May 1993 from a hanging suicide.
11- Kathy Ferguson: Former wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, she was found dead in May 1994 in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases as if she were going somewhere. Her ex-husband Danny was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12- Bill Shelton: The Arkansas State Trooper who was Kathy Ferguson’s fiancée. Bill was questioning the so-called suicide of his fiancée and he was later found dead in June 1994 of a gunshot wound at the grave site of his fiancée. Bill’s death was also ruled a suicide.
13- Gandy Baugh: Attorney for Clinton’s friend named Dan Lassater, died by jumping out of a window of a tall building in January 1994. Lassater was a convicted drug distributor.
14- Florence Martin: An accountant and sub-contractor for the CIA, Florence was related to Barry Seal, Mena, Arkansas airport drug smuggling case. She died of three gunshot wounds.
15- Suzanne Coleman: It was reported she had an affair with Bill Clinton when he was the Arkansas Attorney General. Even though she was pregnant at the time, she supposedly committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head.
16- Paula Grober: she was the Clinton’s interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death in December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17- Danny Casolaro: An investigative reporter who, while investigating the Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority, supposedly slit his own wrists while on this case.
18- Paul Wilcher: the Attorney investigating the corruption at the Mena Airport with Danny Casolero, was found dead on a toilet on June 22, 1993 in his Washington D.C. apartment. He delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.
19- Jon Parnell Walker: Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corporation. While he was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal, he supposedly leaped to his death from his apartment balcony back on August 15, 1993.
20- Barbara Wise: was a Commerce Department staffer who worked closely with Rob Brown and John Huang. Her bruised and naked body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce on November 29, 1996. Her cause of death was unknown.
21- Charles Meissner: Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small airplane crash.
22- Dr. Stanley Heard: Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steven Dickson in a small airplane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
23- Barry Seal: Drug running TWA pilot out of Mena Arkansas; his death was ruled “no accident”.
24- Johnny Lawhorn Jr.: he was the mechanic who found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. Johnny was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25- Stanley Huggins: investigated the Madison Guaranty. His death was supposedly another suicide and his report was never released.
26- Hershell Friday: Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
27- Kevin Ives and Don Henry: also known as “The boys on the track” case. According to the reports, Kevin and Don may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. Both boys supposedly fell asleep on railroad tracks and died. Later reports claimed the two boys had been killed before being placed on the tracks. Many others that were linked to this case died before they could testify before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28- Keith Coney: Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck on July 1988.
29- Keith McMaskle: Died after been stabbed 113 times in November 1988.
30- Gregory Collins: Dead from a gunshot wound in January 1989.
31- Jeff Rhodes: He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
32- James Milan: Found decapitated. However, the coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes”.
33- Jordan Kettleson: Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
34- Richard Winters: A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths was killed in a set-up robbery in July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
35- Major William S. Barkley Jr.
36- Captain Scott J. Reynolds
37- Sergeant. Brian Hanley
38- Sergeant. Tim Sabel
39- Major General William Robertson
40- Colonel William Densberger
41- Colonel Robert Kelly
42- Specialist Gary Rhodes
43- Steve Willis
44- Robert Williams
45- Conway LeBleu
46- Todd McKeehan
During Bill and Hillary’s Administration, which lasted 8 years or 96 months, 1 person died about every 2 months who were directly connected to them or their scandals, one way or the other. And Hillary is the “choice”, the one who’s “entitled” to the DNC nomination for the Presidency? ARE YOU COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BONKERS??? Putting aside Hillary’s 25 years of habitual and serial lying, has everyone suddenly forgotten under her watch as the United States Secretary of State the events of Benghazi and the information that has been garnered about it from the Freedom of Information Act which forced her emails to be revealed? Recall, if you would, that at first:
1) Hillary did not have a cellphone so she couldn’t have sent email messages through one; she lied about that of course.
2) None of her emails were marked “classified”; she lied because even though they weren’t all marked as “classified” per se, as Secretary of State she would know immediately by the content what would be and would not be considered “classified”.
3) Her server was in a non-secure location, in a building, in the bathroom of all places.
4) According to one of the emails Hillary even told her own daughter Chelsey the truth about Benghazi and a foreign official.
5) Her and Bill’s foundation is presently being investigated for possible money-laundering and fraud.
Is this where those who vote for Hillary should say: “At this point, what does it matter?”
This is the candidate, the person folks would have as the next President of the United States of America??? IS THERE EVEN ONE SHRED OF INTELLIGENCE LEFT IN THIS LIFE??? What sane person would vote for a person whose qualifications and background is that of Attila the Hun? And even though in a recent poll in which 58% of Americans don’t trust Hillary, around 30% said they did. Unbelievable! Some folks are actually going to vote for Hillary because they like her. Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s not a matter of whether or not a candidate is likeable, it’s whether they are capable of taking care of America. And part of that mission is to protect and defend all Americans! Hillary Clinton will take the same course of action or, in-action, of Barack Obama if she is elected the 45th President of the United States of America. Listen to what she has stated thus far; her own words tell us she would follow in Obama’s footsteps almost to the letter.
Since 1972 Americans have suffered untold horrors at the hands of radical Islamists. More than 3,000 have died as a result! When is one more death going to be enough? Donald Trump would do what Jimmy Carter had done during the “Iran Hostage” situation of the late 70’s and everyone wants to fault him for wanting “to protect Americans” until “Congress figures out ‘What the hell is going on here?’” Protecting and defending America/Americans is the job of the President. Look at what Obama hasn’t done to protect and defend us. Hillary will be an Obama clone if she’s elected, and folks think Donald Trump is the “bad guy” in all of this?!
Why am I so critical of Hillary? She has no qualifications:
1- She was the First Lady under Bill Clinton’s Administration. Nothing major was ever accomplished by her.
2- As a U.S. Senator she never authored any major bill in the House that was passed.
3- As the Secretary of State she lied about Benghazi and her emails prove it and she is still being investigated.
4- Flying around the world while visiting various countries is NOT an achievement nor accomplishment, it’s called an activity.
5- In her 25 years in the public, political eye Hillary has been caught in more lies and scandals that would’ve sent anyone else straight to prison. But, NOOOOOOO, this is another Clinton. It’s expected of them and we’re expected to turn the blind eye as always. That’s what folks have always done in the Clinton’s case.
Donald Trump is verbose, loud, sometimes obnoxious, some would say egotistical but, the one thing I do like about Donald Trump is that he shoots straight from the hip. He will tell you like he honestly feels it is. Is he a politician? No. And he doesn’t want to be. Is he a businessman? Yes, and that’s what America needs in our next President. We need someone who is qualified to fix America’s economy, our infrastructure, secure our borders, and run Washington D.C. as a businessman should. Donald Trump may not be liked by a number of people but I genuinely feel if, given an “honest chance”, he would fix America. He has all the qualifications a successful businessman needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I grew up in the time when Donna Reed was the ultimate, American housewife. Leave it to Beaver was the typical American son. Make Room for Daddy was a classic American father. The Dick Van Dyke Show was the American nuclear family. It was a quieter, gentler time back then. Now, I know that such times have come and gone. But, that doesn’t mean our American values have to change.
During World War II the impossibly tough decision to intern Japanese Americans had to be made for the sake of National Security; America had to be protected from Japan at that time. During the Carter Administration, yet again, the decision to put a halt to Muslims coming into America was done for the sake of National Security; our great nation’s people had to, once again, be protected. No true American “wanted” to have such acts perpetuated, but we were all forced into the position where it “had” to be done for the safety of America and her people. If elected President, Donald Trump vows to put a temporary halt on Muslims coming in and out of America for the same historical reasons. People will and have condemned him, other have and will revile him but, I genuinely believe America would be a lot “safer” if he were chosen President instead of Hillary. I believe Hillary would continue to bring us down the same Obama's road to ruin and disrepute if she’s elected. Trump’s vision is to have America become “GREAT again” as he has proclaimed instead of, like Obama, go on an “apology tour”.
Choose well; choose wisely! History will remember 2016 as the election in which America made a pivotal decision in its historical course. What that course will be is up to each of you, and each and every single person who is eligible to do so must go out and vote come November 2016 to decide what that historical course shall be.
Doc Marquis was raised as a child in the international, occult group known as the Illuminati. For 20 years he was trained as an Illuminist and attained the rank of Master Witch (a 3rd level Illuminati Witch). As a result of GOD's sovereignty and mercy, Doc became surrounded by Christians who presented him with the Gospel. Confronted by GOD's Word and love, he opened his heart and mind. On April 15, 1979 Doc became a Born-Again Christian, forever severing his ties with the Illuminati. He now devotes his life to traveling across the country and using public forums to expose and educate the public on the occult. Doc speaks at: seminars, lectures, conventions, conferences, workshops, churches, colleges and universities, and special interest groups. He also trains therapists, clinicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, local and state police, and former/present day members of the F.B.I. in the areas of victim-abuse recovery, S.R.A. (Satanic Ritual Abuse), D.I.D. (Disassociative Identity Disorder), programming/brainwashing, solving occult crimes and the eight major occult groups found in America.
Television Appearance/Consulting:
Doc Marquis has appeared on and consulted for: 20/20, The Oprah Winfrey Show, Geraldo Rivera, Hard Copy, Inside Edition, Unsolved Mysteries, Closing Comments, Camp Town Meeting, Thinking Out Loud, Telejournal News, Stand Up For Your Rights, The Americanist Perspective, Where is Rhode Island, We the People, Talk of the Town, Fox Television, Keep Looking to Jesus, and more. Doc has also appeared on international television programs in England, Italy, Japan, Jerusalem and Mexico.
Radio Appearances:
"Coast to Coast A.M. (with Art Bell), “The Hagmann and Hagmann Report” (with Doug and Joe Hagmann), Radio Liberty (Dr. Stan Monteith), “Prophecy in the News” (Gary Stearman and Bob Ulrich), “Raiders News Network” (Dr. Tom Horn), “Southwest Radio Ministries” (Dr. Noah Hutchins), “NewsWithViews” (Coach Dave) “Ground Zero” (Clyde Lewis), “Omega Man Radio”, “Let Freedom Ring," Fort Wayne, IN; "The Open Forum," Teague, TX; "Old Path Ministries," Attleboro, MA; "The Lou Epton Show," Las Vegas, NV; "The American Freedom Network," and more than 1,000 other shows throughout the world.
For any information about speaking appearances or television/radio interviews, please contact Doc Marquis @: docmarquis777@yahoo.com or find him on Facebook
DVD Series: “The Secrets of the Illuminati” Series
1. The Arrival of the Antichrist, (2010)
2. America’s Occult Holidays, (2010)
3. Frontmen of the Illuminati, (2010)
4. Magick, Mysticism and Masonry, (2010)
5. Protocols of Zion (2010)
6. The Illuminati is Fulfilling Bible Prophecy (2010)
7. Illuminati 2012 and Beyond (Volume 1) (2011)
8. Illuminati 2012 and Beyond (Volume 2) (2011)
9. Aliens, Fallen Angels or Antichrist? (Volume 1) (2012)
10. Aliens, Fallen Angels or Antichrist? (Volume 2) (2012)
11. Dark Rites and Rituals at the Bohemian Grove (2013)
12. False Flag Over Boston (2014)
13. Dictators of the Illuminati (2014)
Catholicism: Which Queen of Heaven? (2012)
Which Rapture are we Waiting for? (2014)
The Complete set of 12 DVDs
*******
Also See:
What Happens in Iowa, Stays in Iowa!
08 February 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2016/02/what-happens-in-iowa-stays-in-iowa.html
and
Days Before the Two Candidates Are Known!
14 January 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2016/01/days-before-two-candidates-are-known-it.html
and
 Best Candidate for President? Donald Trump, Hands Down!
04 November 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/11/best-candidate-for-president-donald.html
and
 Will Donald Trump be the Next President?
(Part 1)
06 June 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/06/blog-post.html
and
Who's Pushing For The New World Order?
15 January 2016
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2016/01/whos-pushing-for-new-world-order.html
and
The New World Order - How Close Is It?
21 November 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-new-world-order-how-close-is-it.html
and
UN’s Global Goals: “End Poverty, Climate Change and Injustice”
01 October 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/10/uns-global-goals-end-poverty-climate.html
and
Catholic Bishops Telling Parishers to Vote for Justin Trudeau!
09 September 2015
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2015/09/catholic-bishops-telling-parishers-to.html
and
What's with the Vatican?
30 May 2014
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2014/05/whats-with-vatican.html
and
Who is Pope Francis I?
15 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/who-is-pope-francis-i.html
*******
Viewing all 3271 articles
Browse latest View live