Monday, February 28, 2011
Meanwhile, I'm sharing a 2009 article (below) from Met Life telling their clients all about the fabulous tax advantages of "conservation easements." In essence, in this article, Met Life is selling the idea of transferring private property over to nonprofits and governments for the sake of wealth management. Government agencies are participating with full vigor to implement all of the conservation easements and protections they can get their hands on. Mind you, as you consider this issue, that the land being transferred is going out of private hands into the hands of government bureaucracies and nonprofits using your tax dollars to do it.
I don't know about you, but I don't believe I have ever had the issue come before me on a ballot. In other words, I was never consulted as a voter to bless the use of my tax money (Fed, State, or Local) to be used as an incentive to take private property for the "common good" creating conservation areas. An entire huge industry has erupted around this concept. And our taxes are going for grants to employ slews of bureaucrats and tree huggers just for the purpose of transferring (redistributing) the wealth of land and money.
The article states this as of 2009: "The 1980s saw strong growth of the land trust movement so that today the Land Trust Alliance, a grassroots organization that unites and champions organizations in local communities working to save natural areas, now represents 1,600 land trusts nationwide. The Nature Conservancy and other preservation organizations are major forces in land conservation today. " That statement is just the tip of the iceberg, as you know that today, two years hence, the nonprofit conservancy groups have multiplied like roaches.
If it weren't so tragic, I'd be laughing at the description of the Land Trust Alliance as a "grassroots organization." I guess if you think the United Nations is a "grassroots organization" that has any jurisdiction within the sovereign United States, you might think that statement is true. But the entire premise of this land taking operation was established and is being implemented through a United Nations' Agenda 21 initiative. There is nothing "grassroots" or American about this. In fact, the entire premise is completely antithetical to the protection of property rights in the United States Constitution.
2009 Met Life Article on Land Trusts
2011 White House report on the Land Trust Alliance
Excerpt: "In communities across America, nonprofit land trusts are working with private landowners to keep farm, ranch and forest lands in productive use, create community parks and open space, protect important fish and wildlife habitat, and conserve our scenic and historic heritage. With the help of more than 100,000 volunteers and 2 million members, land trusts have conserved more than 37 million acres, including more than 12 million acres protected by voluntary conservation agreements with private landowners."
Well, I'm an artist and not exactly a math genius, but even I can see that statement says that out of 37 million acres, 12 million acres are "protected" (which actually means "restricted use") by voluntary means. That would mean that 25 million acres are involuntarily confiscated?
Over 40% of all land within the lower 48 states is now held by governments and out of the hands of private ownership. If 2/3 of it is taken involuntarily by land trusts and governments as indicated in this article, what does that say about our Constitutional private property rights? Not much, if you ask me.
Now I can think of some serious unemployment I would like to personally cause. I'd put everyone involved in the Agenda 21 business in America out of business and out of work. And I don't think I'd be willing to pay them unemployment benefits. But that's just me. I'd haul them into court on charges of fraud and treason. But that's just me.
So there is another part of the ongoing saga of Lands Conservancies taking America away from our citizens. Stay tuned. I'm so incensed on the subject that I am likely to continue my rant for a while.....
Friday, February 25, 2011
Three things make this unethical and predatory land grab work. One is that the folks behind these schemes are very good salespersons. They are schooled in all the right buzz words and, when performing in front of City and County councils, they speak of "Sustainability," "Livability," "Connectivity," "Land Protection," "Preserving Natural Environments," "Community Involvement," etc. They are also very good at doing the CYA dance...taking no responsibility whatsoever for the taking of land, dropping all of the responsibility onto the local governments. In short, they are Public Relations experts, but won't do the maintenance or the land taking themselves. It's a very clever con.
The second thing that makes this land grab work is the lack of understanding of the local councils on exactly what the motives are behind it. Councils and Mayors and Commissioners only hear the sales pitch. They are told about all of the magnificent natural qualities of their local environment and how important it is to preserve those natural qualities. You could not possibly disagree with that, now could you? Next they are told EVERYONE in their area wants access to all of the natural beauty around them. So, wouldn't it be just tragic to deny that access? Then they are told that the entire community wants preservation and conservation and protection of the land and resources. Gee, would you want to disagree with the entire community? Nevermind that there has been no referendum on the matter. The local government councils are also told that all of the adjoining counties are participating or seriously considering participation, so you would not want to be left out, now would you? Being flattered into thinking the local landscape is so valuable, and being pushed into the herd by these slick master salespersons, local governments are swallowing this sales pitch, hook, line, and sinker.
Next the money starts flowing into the "planners" pockets. These are the folks who create maps of trails and land masses, over-laying trails and "open areas" onto private property. After that, the tax deduction ploy begins and the city or county starts going after the land owners. The tax deductions come from the Federal government where many agencies hand out grants and tax deductions for the purposes of "conservation," "watershed preservation," "protection of natural environments," "recreational access," and all of the aforementioned buzz words. Put tax deductions out there and let the frenzy begin.
I'm planning to stay on top of this subject for a long time. In the meantime, below is an excellent article explaining how Agenda 21 is being implemented in your town and mine.
Kathleen McCarthy on Agenda 21 - The United Nations Taking Private Property Near You
|Rubber-Stamping Agenda 21 Starts in Scott County|
|Commentary/Politics - Editorials||ShareThis|
|Written by Kathleen McCarthy|
|Wednesday, 16 February 2011 05:30|
How’s this for a conspiracy theory? A global agenda, unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development (UNCED, also known as the Rio Earth Summit), that is being progressively implemented in every level of government in America through a United Nations (UN) initiative called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Agenda 21, as it is referred to in the UN’s own documentation (UN.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21), is “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.”
Its purpose: to centrally own and control the planet’s resources under the guise of “smart planning” and “sustainable development.” In fact, for most UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Agenda 21 is synonymous with sustainable development.
The two primary goals of Agenda 21 are to (1) decrease the world population to “sustainable” levels as a means to effectively control labor, the planet’s number-one resource, and (2) eradicate individual property rights via comprehensive land-use planning that dictates land use according to a global master plan that includes control of everything from food to health to energy to security, and the list goes on.
Locally, in Scott County, the slow incremental steps of this globalist agenda are wide open for all to see. On February 3, the Scott County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt the state of Iowa’s “Smart Planning Principles” as part of its Comprehensive Plan. The language of such principles sounds laudable on the surface: collaboration, efficiency, diversity, revitalization. Who could not be for these principles?
On January 20, the county staff explained that adopting these principles was a requirement to be eligible for future state and federal sustainability grants. The fine print the county staff would prefer you don’t read is that the resolution adopts Iowa Code 18B Land Use, which reads in part:
“Governmental, community, and individual stakeholders, including those outside the jurisdiction of the entity, are encouraged to be involved and provide comment during deliberation of planning, zoning, development, and resource-management decisions and during implementation of such decisions. Individuals, communities, regions, and governmental entities should share in the responsibility to promote the equitable distribution of development benefits and costs.”
This language reinforces what many critics of Agenda 21 are concerned with: Accepting state and federal grants eventually leads to ceding local authority to more centralized regional councils of unelected governments – with the authority to levy more taxes (Does SECC911 ring any bells?) so they may further their top-down goals.
Supervisor Larry Minard addressed this concern prior to his vote, stating: “If such an organization does develop that relates to planning and other issues that might come before it ... the state will decide that and they will decide whether it’s a taxable organization or it doesn’t tax. They will decide what’s going to happen; we won’t. But I can guarantee you that if we have that organization that Scott County will be a participant and play an active role. And we will do what ... allows our people to have that quality of life that we think they should have.”
Coming down the pipeline soon is the county’s “Sustainability Plan” (funded by a federal grant), which if approved will be another brick in the wall of Agenda 21 implemented locally in Scott County.
This global-to-local strategy began with President George H. Bush as the signatory for the U.S., one of 178 nations that adopted Agenda 21 at UNCED. In 1993, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) submitted House Joint Resolution 166 for the implementation of Agenda 21, but it failed. So President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) via an executive order to implement Agenda 21 that same year.
It is important to note that Congress has had no say in the matter because Agenda 21 is considered to be a “soft-law policy recommendation” requiring no ratification because it does not qualify as a “treaty.” Soft-law policies are not internationally binding but can find easy application through local legislation.
For most Americans, it is inconceivable that our own government would be party to any program or process, such as the United Nations’ Agenda 21, specifically designed to reduce population and eliminate private-property rights. Yet this is exactly what is taking place across our land, and around the globe. It is a long-range plan that is methodical and precise in its execution.
Sadly, like most effective conspiracies, many participants are not even aware of its existence as they propel much of this nefarious agenda forward through local, state, and federal programming in our schools, land-use agencies, county and city services, health and emergency-management processes, and, most critically, our courts.
The most widely used tool for implementing Agenda 21 locally is through stakeholder councils, which are charged with creating consensus on some project, typically the result of a perceived crisis in the community, such as a poor water-management system or high population density. (Supervisor Minard believes 350 humans per square mile is one such problem in terms of sustainability in Scotty County.)
Once a project has been identified, NGOs, regional councils of governments, not-for-profits, etc. have a vast stock of sustainable-development cookie-cutter solutions available through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). That organization was launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future and has its headquarters in Toronto, Canada, with branches worldwide, including in Berkeley, California.
ICLEI’s sole mission is to assist local governments, such as counties and cities, by providing policy recommendations for implementing sustainability programming. ICLEI was instrumental in writing a portion of the Agenda 21 handbook, specifically Chapter 28, and in the formulation of Local Action 21 Strategies that ensure the “unwavering, systematic implementation of local action plans over the next decade,” as reported in ICLEI’s Motto, Mandate, Movement (2003).
Agenda 21’s primary directive is for human wants, needs, and desires to conform to the views and dictates of the planners. According to Harvey Ruvin, vice chair of ICLEI and clerk of the circuit and county court of Miami-Dade County, Florida: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” (For more information, see Understanding Sustainable Development: Agenda 21 at FreedomAdvocates.org.)
Rather than all men being created equal – with government’s role to ensure each individual’s rights are not violated – “equity” will be accomplished by implementing international economic order and transferring resources from developed countries to undeveloped countries. Because the United States has a higher standard of living than most countries, developed or not, our standard of living must decrease to bring about international economic balance. That is what is meant by redistribution of wealth. Instead of utilizing private enterprise, however, the redistribution is taking place utilizing public/private partnerships. This model is accelerating and will soon appear to be the norm rather than the exception.
Public/private partnerships are antithetical to free enterprise. Big business melds with big government to form the unholy alliances that corrupt competition. The lethal combination of economic power and government force inevitably leads to tyranny, and clearly defines nearly every democracy on the planet, past and present.
Agenda 21 is primarily implemented through a network of agencies that provide carrots in the form of federal and state grants dangled in front of mostly unsuspecting bureaucrats and elected politicians who consider themselves omnipotent budget managers instead of upholding individual’s personal-property rights as their oaths of office dictate.
Institutional laziness that infects every level of U.S. government makes formulaic programs even more attractive to bureaucrats and politicians because all the heavy lifting is already done. The funding abounds via tax-funded agencies and foundations. So that just leaves the quid pro quo or the necessary pay-to-play, which is, simply put, the sacrificing of Americans’ unalienable rights – namely property rights that are forsaken so that massive amounts of land can be transferred, bought/sold, and/or controlled for the use of a global central-planning cabal.
Most nations are enthusiastically on-board with Agenda 21 because they have far less to lose and much more to gain. This is not the case in America. We have everything to lose and nothing whatsoever to gain. Perhaps that’s why Agenda 21 is such a stealthily crafted conspiracy, one that has plausible deniability as long as you don’t read any of the fine print. Be clear here: The “planners” are literally banking that you won’t.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Here is a copy of my editorial published in the Gaston Gazette today:
Eminent Domain For What?
If someone told you that some or all of the property you own could be confiscated against your will for a common area, an open area, a walking or biking trail, what would you say? You search for and find that perfect property to buy, only to find out that a 10 or 20 foot swath of that property next to a creek or stream is required greenway? Would you still want to buy it? Let's say you bought a piece of land for the scenery, the quiet solitude, and the privacy. Should government force you to relinquish your land for the sake of recreational common access? Maybe we should ask Mayor Stultz.
While environmentalist conservation groups avow that they have no "eminent domain" powers, they create partnerships with local governments in order to use those governments to do the dirty work for them. Greenway websites emphasize that all land acquisitions are "voluntary." As we have seen recently in Gastonia, that is not exactly the truth with regard to the recent greenway project.
Eminent Domain is a property-taking law originally devised for the government to take land for critical infrastructure such as roads and utilities, to provide service to the population surrounding the property in question. Environmentalists have convinced politicians that they have the power and right to take privately owned property for “public benefit” by means of eminent domain on the basis of walkways, biking trails, and the vague definition of "open areas."
Greenways’ websites promote all kinds of utopian benefits through restricting land use, creating open areas, and building walking and biking trails. They even call greenways "alternative transportation" to get grants from the State and Federal Departments of Transportation. Do you wonder where our transportation money is going?
The operating capital for these groups is government grants and tax-deductible donations. This means governments are giving tax dollar grants to organizations with which the governments are partnering, while at the same time governments are handing out tax deductions to donors who give land or money to the greenways, trails, and conservancy organizations in order to encourage people to fund the taking of property. Cleverly, the money trail is the real trail being created under the guise of greenways. The conservancy foundations are not working for free. The more government grants and tax deductible donations they get, the fatter their salaries and bank accounts grow.
Recently I found a published plan on the City of Gastonia website. It is at cityofgastonia.com or you can google search "Gastonia 2020 Plan For Our Future." The plan states our government should "Encourage the protection of land through foundations and land trusts." It states our local government is to "partner with land conservancies and other public and nonprofit environmental agencies." What would be the purpose of such partnerships? Would those "partnerships" involve tax-funded grants for the taking of private property? In this instance, the word "protection" means "restricted use."
Historically, the “mob” always demanded "protection" money, too. What a coincidence! Did you vote to have our government partner with land trusts and conservancies to "protect”……oops, I mean “restrict” land use? If you did, was it your own land or land belonging to someone else you wish to restrict? Did you vote for a plan allowing our local government to take land by eminent domain for a greenway or a bike trail? You didn't? Neither did I.
Instead of encouraging private land ownership and industries, our local government wants you to believe that by partnering with anti-private property rights groups, restricting land ownership, we will create some desirable location attracting businesses and lots of industrious, educated people. What industrious and educated persons want to buy or own a piece of land that could be taken or restricted at any whim of the local government for any reason whatsoever such as greenways? I think there is an oxymoron in there somewhere. Should we ask Mayor Stultz about that, too?
Our County Commissioners are deliberating the threat of eminent domain for the Carolina Thread Trail on Thursday, February 24. You can show your support for our guaranteed Constitutional property rights by contacting them and telling them you are against the use of eminent domain for any such purposes as greenways, trails, and open areas.
So there it is. Our local problem is not just happening to us. The drive for property-taking by local and state governments, operating in unelected partnerships with environmentalist groups, is going on all over the United States. If you are reading this from whatever town in anywhere USA and are facing the same onslaught from these nonprofit land grabbers, please feel free to use my op-ed as a model to go after the offenders.
Below: Written by Adolf Hitler in 192o / The platform of the National Socialist Workers Party
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
(Two articles down in this blog is Hitler's entire list.)
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
History of Public Sector Unions at Director Blue Blogspot
History of Unions in America with Beck videos on the subject
American Justice Center.com - Time to Get Rid of Government Unions
Heritage.org blog - American People Can't Afford to Lose Wisconsin
Conservative New Ager on getting rid of government unions!
Monday, February 21, 2011
A friend, whose blog is called Conservatives On Fire, carried an article over the weekend featuring "Letters From Svetlana." It's worth noting that those who have lived through the reality of socialist / fascist / communist governments know very well where the left is taking America.....and their warnings should be heeded. Conservatives On Fire-Svetlana's Letters Svetlana is wise....Pay Attention!
Additional links, articles on Obama's Marxist trajectory:
/a< Homicide Rate under Chavez in Venezuela
"The Back Door To Socialism" "In 1942, Joseph Schumpeter wrote that capitalism would be threatened and condemned by intellectuals, not for its failures, but its successes—and that socialism was inevitable."
Lastly, just in case you think Barack Obama is such an original thinker, read the list below and ask yourself what exactly is Barack Obama? His wife? The Clintons? The Democrat Party? The government unions?
Below: Written by Adolf Hitler in 192o / The platform of the National Socialist Workers Party
WE DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE THE OBLIGATION ABOVE ALL OF PROVIDING CITIZENS WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND EARNING A LIVING.
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLASH WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN ITS CONFINES AND BE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL ...
WE DEMAND THE NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE BEEN AMALGAMATED (INTO TRUSTS).
WE DEMAND THAT THE STATE SHALL SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF LARGE INDUSTRIES.
WE DEMAND THAT PROVISION FOR THE AGED SHALL BE MADE ON A VERY GREATLY INCREASED SCALE.
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
WE DEMAND AN AGRARIAN REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; THE ENACTMENT OF A LAW TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMPENSATION THE OWNERS OF ANY LAND THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF GROUND RENTS; AND THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
...THE STATE SHALL ORGANIZE THOROUGHLY THE WHOLE CULTURAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION . . . THE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE IDEA (THE SCIENCE OF CITIZENSHIP) SHALL BE TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE DEMAND THAT SPECIALLY TALENTED CHILDREN OF POOR PARENTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATION OR OCCUPATION, SHALL BE EDUCATED AT THE COST OF THE STATE.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO HELP RAISE THE STANDARD OF THE NATION'S HEALTH BY PROVIDING MATERNITY WELFARE CENTRES, BY PROHIBITING JUVENILE LABOUR, BY INCREASING PHYSICAL FITNESS THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY GAMES AND GYMNASTICS. . . .
(WE) COMBAT THE MATERIALISTIC SPIRIT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE US, AND ARE CONVINCED THAT A PERMANENT RECOVERY OF OUR PEOPLE CAN ONLY PROCEED WITHIN ON THE FOUNDATION OF "THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD."
-- From the "Twenty-Five Point" Programme of the German National Socialist Workers Party, authored by Adolf Hitler and others on February 24, 1920. (Konrad Heiden's translation in A History of National Socialism)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
My career and health have been neglected to some degree to do this. Lately, I find two things to be inhibiting the goals of my writing.
One is the problem of "preaching to the choir." Those who agree have been supportive and for that I am grateful. While it is good to gather forces together for the sake of strength, the goal, for me, is to hopefully help others find reasons to understand why socialism / communism / fascism / all other totalitarian forms of government are not just wrong, but suicidal. I find that those, whose minds need this understanding, either don't care, don't read opposition commentary, or are so hell bent on national suicide that my writing is wasted on them.
The other is the problem of Libertarians. Maybe that sounds funny, but for Libertarians I don't go far enough towards their philosophies. While I am conservative in the historical, "classic liberal," Constitutional sense of government, I am not a Libertarian. That means I am NOT a neoConservative wishing to grow the power of the State over the individual, but I am not as far to the right as Libertarians. The most passionate arguments against my assertions come from Libertarians. Now I happen to think that, while there are some points of Libertarianism that fit into the Conservative model, there are differences. And no, I do not wish to go into that again here. Suffice it to say that I do not wish to spend my energies arguing with Libertarians on the Fair Tax, legalizing prostitution, legalizing drugs, shrinking the military, etc. Frankly, I am looking for solutions to those issues other than the extreme "my way or the highway" proposals brought by die-hard ideologues on these things. I find that Libertarians are as arrogant and stuck in those positions as the Bill Ayers / Cloward and Piven / communists are arrogant and stuck in their positions.
I don't wish to spend my energies beating my head against the wall. Futility is not fun, frankly. You can quote me. FUTILITY IS NOT FUN!
For the near term, going forward, I may post links to some blogs and political sites whose articles I think are important to share. There are terrifically intelligent links at the side bar for you to visit. In the meantime, there is a search bar at the top right of this blog if you wish to reference some previous articles I've written. I may find a way to limit my articles to once every two or four weeks. Not sure at this point just where I'm going with this blog....but I am going back to my easel and attempting to focus on something NOT FUTILE for a while.
Thanks for reading and all of the support....
Sunday, February 13, 2011
It's the Ron Paul thing. Sometimes I wonder if Ron Paul lives in an alternate universe. I've watched him in debates. I've read his views. I even like his son, Rand Paul, in some ways. I follow Ron Paul's prescriptions along just so far, thinking he is sane, and then, BAM, comes the hammer....his unfathomable disregard for U.S. military strength. If you view the left - right biases in a circle, Ron Paul is where the right meets the left, conjoining at the nexus of Neverland meeting Nod.
From Rick Moran at American Thinker:
"The more dangerous the world becomes, the more Ron Paul wants the US to disengage, cut its military beyond what any other presidential candidate (except perhaps Dennis Kucinich) would support, while blaming America - and Israel - for most of the evils in the world. It didn't fly in 2008 and it will be even less popular in 2012 if Ron Paul were to embarrass himself and run for president again."
While Ron Paul is out there talking about how we are the problem and how we need to reduce funding for and shrink our military, President Obama is setting up the next World War by creating a coalition of enemy states in the middle east on the ridiculous ruse of "democracy." Between Obama and Ron Paul, the citizens of the U.S. might as well just play twiddly winks in their living rooms while the world crashes in. Just exactly who does Ron Paul think is going to protect the United States when the Caliphate organizes itself against Israel and the U.S.? The Boy Scouts? Ron Paul is becoming old....or is old. He is certainly old enough to have some inkling of what WWII was and how we got here. But he continues on his anti-military ranting without recognizing our vulnerability against rising China, Russia, and now the Islamic Caliphate. He might have a slight inkling on the financial side of things. But he completely blows it every time when discussing what he would do with our military.
CPAC got it wrong again. Voting Ron Paul the winner of the straw poll at CPAC says more about who has decided to infiltrate the Republican Party than who would be a strong President. Ron Paul is a Libertarian wearing a Republican tag. Libertarianism is not Conservatism. But libertarians have no where to go. They don't have a big enough base to be viable in national elections, so they weasel their ways into the Republican Party...just in the same way that big government RINO's have weaseled their way into the Republican Party.
And there lies the dilemma. The Republican Party can't seem to define itself. The Democrat party has defined itself as the Socialist Party. The Dems have weeded out most of the Blue Dog conservatives and has become nearly, purely, Socialist. So we know who they are. They know who they are.
But what does the Republican Party represent? From Lindsay Graham to Ron Paul and anyone in between? How nebulous is the opposition to Obama and the Democrat / Socialist Party? One of the handicaps that will keep Republicans from winning the White House is the non-definition of values and policies. At this moment, it seems the Republicans are all over the map and falling apart. It is as if know one really knows what Republicans stand for, so the only reason to vote for them is knowing and despising what Democrats represent. Well, that is not going to get it.
We do finally have some seriously good conservatives in Congress, thanks to a lot of hard work to get them elected last fall. But as far as Presidential candidates are concerned we have no one....not one good, solid, electable, conservative. The straw poll vote at CPAC shows just how weak the Republican alternatives are at the moment. I am still hoping someone will show up to save the day...but Ron Paul? You have to be kidding. Time for a reality check, and a lot of prayer.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Democracy being billed as the cure for the world is a trojan horse. America is NOT a democracy. The difference between a "democracy" and a "republic" used to be taught in high school civics classes or government studies. But from what I am seeing in the media and in our own leadership, Americans don't know that difference and are jumping on board with a government philosophy of a tyranny of a majority that is completely dangerous to the survival of our nation.
For your information: "The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man." Definition of Democracy
America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Why? Here is why: "A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate." From the same source HERE
"Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals."
We are witnessing a global shift of power devolving into mob rule. Our founders knew to not trust a "majority" to be a just protectorate of individual rights. Why? Because they understood history and human nature. They understood that a majority can destroy peoples and civilizations. They understood that a majority can vote for tyranny. America has been a thriving nation because of its protection of individual rights. If you look across history, you will not find another nation under any other form of government that has been so successful in the prosperity of its citizens. Why? Because of the protection of individual rights.
Dictatorships eventually fall. Communism fails the people whose rights are trampled. Socialism fails the people under totalitarian rule. State Fascism failed as seen with Hitler and Mussolini. Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. A Theocracy can be as dangerous as the others. The next question is; Will America survive a world where "democracy" votes in a combination of State run Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or Theocracy, across the globe?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
A criticism I received some time ago was that I should see life in shades of gray instead of black and white, that there are no absolutes. Someone who says "absolutely" that there are no absolutes, is contradicting him or herself just by that statement. I tried not to laugh, but looking back I should have just burst into gales of laughter in response. But I am kind and not usually a mocking person, so I pretty much just explained that I did not hold that view. Positively No Absolutes? That being said, I plead guilty to the charge of believing in absolutes. Truth being an anchor of those beliefs. I don't like liars. I don't like people who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I also don't like those who think they are advancing some great societal peace by taking two completely incompatible sides of an issue while thinking they are being "inclusive."
For instance, the idea that "democracy" automatically means " freedom" is ignoring Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba, etal. Freedom is not "democracy." A dictator, a totalitarian, a despot can presumably be elected by some "democratic" process. Americans would be fools to believe that including the Muslim Brotherhood into the "democracy" in Egypt is going to bring peace or freedom to that area of the world. Americans would also be fools to believe that the Clintons and Obama don't have their fingerprints all over the chaos in the middle east.
MY DEAR WORMWOOD,
"I note what you say about guiding our patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naïf? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church."
The radical Destroyer in Chief is especially talented in duplicity, (ahem) by that I mean lies. For instance, telling Americans that under his plan they can keep their health insurance if they wish to. Sometimes you get a glimmer of truth out of him when he says, "under my policies, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket." But for the most part, he cloaks all of his public language in middle of the road dressings, all the while, behind the scenes, he is appointing Czars who are regulating people's lives out of existence. His childhood lessons in Communism from his family were not lost on him. The Marxist philosophy of the end justifying the means is his creed. So if you, American citizens, vote into office representatives who won't do Obama's bidding, he just goes around them and gives regulatory power to the executive branch...himself.
The Presidency is one example. What is especially disconcerting lately is the exact same duplicity in local governments. This has not happened by accident. If taking Federal money with strings means your local leaders are going to use your tax dollars for things other than your democratic preferences, well..your local leaders are pretty much telling you to stick it where the sun don't shine, so to speak. In the town I live in, our local leaders are using our tax dollars for everything else other than what our tax dollars are meant to cover. Then, running out of money, the local leaders come whining that they can't pay for normal services, so they must raise taxes or create extra fees so they don't break the budget. They already broke the budget by playing the progressive Federal game of "green" initiatives or building trinkets such as a community convention center, downtown renovations, a White Water Center, etc., all of which are projects that used to be funded with private capital. Now that federal policies have wrecked whole industries and removed capital from U.S. businesses through the "redistribution of wealth," politicians have turned to private citizens to pay for these trinkets. Who eventually ends up either paying up or going broke? The citizens who live here, or those who live in anytown, USA who are suffering through the same type of corrupt local leadership. Someone tell me, what good is a White Water Center, a greenway, or a Convention Center if the local government is broke and the national economy is crumbling? Further, if the public is against spending money on those things, what "democracy" are our leaders supporting?
Incompatible philosophies, and lies are leading us into chaos and conflict and economic ruin, not just on a national level, but locally. The end does not justify the means. Our national leaders are on a path of destruction. Our local leaders are marching right behind them with rings on their fingers and bells on their toes, spending our money on the rings and the bells. We do not need to follow them. The place to start recognizing the truth is here in your own backyard.
Hat tips to:
The Truth on FDR - Connections to Marxism
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Aaron Klein: "Philanthropist George Soros (right) has funded opposition organizations in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, where anti-regime chaos has already toppled the pro-Western leader of Tunisia and is threatening the rule of President Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. ally."
I read that sentence and a funny thing struck me. The word "philanthropist" used to mean someone with great wealth who contributed to charities in order to do good things for people in the world. The word "philanthropist" attached to George Soros hardly describes what he does, which is the evil, deliberate meddling destruction of countries. Now, I suppose Mr. Soros, being the third most wealthy person in the world, may stroke his own ego with thoughts of how generous and "philanthropic" he is. He has admitted he likes playing God.
Aaron Klein: "Also, Mohamed El Baradei, one of the main opposition leaders in Egypt, has sat on the board of an international “crisis management” group alongside Soros and other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that seeks to gain from the Mideast protests."
And, just in case you are clueless about the enemies within our own country / government working tirelessly to undermine the United States, Aaron Klein connects those dots for you as well:
"U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in 2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to the Islamist group."
The article is well worth your time. Aaron Klein is doing yeoman's work in exposing who is behind the White House curtain.
For those useful idiots who voted for Obama, you have no idea what global game is being played to take you down. You voted for national suicide.
Monday, February 7, 2011
In the above mentioned article, Mr. Fricke astutely points out: "The left assigns moral equivalence to all cultures in a common cause attempt to seek socialist control of populations regardless of the nature of any totalitarian rule. The left's socialist goals require all sorts of catalysts, even those that are at odds with the left's stated platform of inclusion. In reality the only inclusion the left desires is that all people be controlled by a central government." and "But the real goal is not to use multiculturalism to encourage living separate lives, but in fact to encourage the death of traditional cultures and to ensure that destruction by attacking and demonizing the pillars of European and American society."
In years past America has been referred to, quaintly, as a "Melting Pot." Anyone who has ever put together a good pot of stew knows that the ingredients come together to create one cohesive entity. Blending for the sake of one. They would also know that some ingredients do not compliment others and must, by virtue of a discriminating palate, be left out of the stew, i.e. you don't put lime juice into a beef stew. E Pluribus Unum. Not so for "multicuralists." Multicuralists want you to think that a cohesive society can be achieved without the "melting." The academic multicuralist lab experiment is used by Socialists to facilitate the breakdown of America's laws and traditions. (as has been witnessed in Europe) That is all it is. It is being used as a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of a Socialist Tower of Babel. In order to get there, they must first tear down individual countries, their identities, and there sovereignty. Notice, instead of celebrating America, Obama has spent his entire presidency apologizing for being American, apologizing for America. Tear it down first...."transform" America. Into what? Was anyone asking?
The Tower of Babel was a creation of a leader named Nimrod to unite the entire world. God said this would not do and struck it down. (Why do you think "Nimrod" today is an name indicating stupidity?) He, God, sent the people out to scatter into separate languages and cultures / countries where they would thrive better and within their own individual characteristics. America, while referred to as a "Melting Pot" is one of those separate countries with a distinct culture and language. But global socialists want to build a Tower of Babel, linking the entire world with "universal rights," among other things. Think the song "We Are the World" as just one pop culture item of indoctrination. No, we are NOT the world. We are Americans. We were a "Melting Pot." Now we are supposed to be some area of land made up of isolated cultures who do not mix with each other, nor compliment the whole of the stew. Multiculturalism has no commonality with a nation. It's like separate tribal states, such as exists in the very disjointed areas of Africa where war between tribes exists all the time. No cohesiveness. Constant struggles for power. Constant conflict. Which is pretty much what is being set up in Europe and in the U.S.
Muslims and Socialists seem to have decided they have a common enemy. The enemy for them is Christian and Jewish, is a capitalist, and someone who believes in the rule of American law. In the combined efforts of Muslims and Socialists, they would create a global Tower of Babel, where all peoples are enlisted to build a world wide society based on the tenets totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is what Muslims and Socialists have in common, besides the hate for Christians and Jews that is. The commonality between Muslims and Socialists is not all inclusive and eventually the Socialists and Muslims will turn on each other for power. In the interim, we are going to be facing war with Muslims for the unforeseeable future.
But for the sake of the Socialists' stepping stones, who better to facilitate the rise of a Muslim Caliphate but an American president whose father was a Muslim and is a Muslim sympathizer? How does America fight an enemy when the President of the United States does not acknowledge the threat. (Jimmy Carter redux on steroids.....see previous post)
As we are watching Egypt fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and their Socialist buddies, we are witnessing the rise of a Muslim Caliphate where "all others" will be conscripted into servitude or destroyed by the Muslims. Muslims don't believe in individual rights. Period. The Muslim way is a theocracy built on some misguided superiority complex, and if you don't tow the line, you will be murdered. Muslims don't believe in "multicuralism." So if you think this rise of the Muslim Caliphate is going to result in peace between the Socialists and the Muslims, just wait for the fireworks to start on that score.
Meanwhile, it looks like the Prime Ministers Cameron and Merkel have just begun to see what Europe has wrought by inviting millions of Muslims into their midst. I fear this is a day late and a dollar short. How will they rid themselves now of the enemy withing their borders? And worse for us, the United States has adopted a laissez faire attitude toward the Muslim immigrations policies here. Oh, sure....just come on in and begin the rot and corruption of America. It might take you a hundred years...but oh, what the hell...you'll get there eventually.
Unless and until, the United States and Europe recognize the enemy that the Muslim Brotherhood represents, and the enemy that Multiculturalism of Socialists represents, we will be fighting wars and suffering the consequences of the Socialist Tower of Babel.
Right Track Article on Multiculturalism "People, consider the story of the Tower of Babel in the Bible. Whether you believe the story or not, the moral is that even then different languages caused people to separate into distinct groups. These different languages caused different cultures to develop, and that’s good. What’s not good is when one culture intrudes upon another, refuses to assimilate, and demands that the host culture accomodate the intruder’s intrusiveness."
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Meanwhile, Business Insider has printed the chart below from a site called Calculated Risk Blog.com Evidently, while America has suffered through recessions in the past, this one somehow takes the cake for deep and wide and long term.
Someday we will rid ourselves of the Destroyer in Chief and get back on our feet. Until then, pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
"For the left there is just one overpowering consideration. After the collapse of communism, radical Islam appears to be the only power capable of defeating capitalism and the hated United States as the last obstacle on the road to socialist utopia."
Obama's Friends Bring Chaos to Streets of the Middle East - Article from Jan. 1, 2010 - Worth Reading