I am a Conservative and a Constitutionalist when it comes to preserving all that is good in our constitution and a Radical at removing all laws that undermine the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally denounce both the passions of the many and the prejudices of the few. I also refute any law, order, or resolution based on passion (Fear) or prejudice.
Any rule that takes away from one, in order to reward another, I repudiate and it is every citizens duty to remove from position of power any official who proposes, endorses or has a hand in passing any regulation, code, ordinance, statue or legislation that is based on emotion, if their actions do not meet the standards set forth under the Constitution.
On a daily bases we're constantly bombarded from all sides by propaganda. It seems every Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, and even the person on the street, tells us this country is a Democracy! Well, in my opinion, that is just not true.
Now that I've got your attention, and the smokes rolling out of your ears and your blood pressure is on the rise, let me explain.
Why is the word "Democracy" always used when someone or some group promotes a certain agenda? I've been asking myself that question for years. I've come to the conclusion that this is an effective marketing strategy developed during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The strategy is, use words that invoke an emotional response in people and if a word or phrase is used enough people will begin to believe it, even if it’s a lie. The Socialist Democratic Party (The Nazi's) in Germany of the 1930's perfected this strategy called Propaganda. Today, both Liberals and Conservatives use this same method to promote their agenda's, evoke an emotional response and repeat it over and over enough times and no one will question your motives...
What is the definition of a Democracy? There are as many definition of that word as there are ants on an anthill. I've boiled it down to just one.
Democracy: Majority rule. (Literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") Democracy is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy, but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.
Now where does it state we live in a Democracy? Not in the Declaration of Independents, that’s for sure! Does the Constitution of the United States, or the Articles of Confederation tell us that? No, not in these two documents, either! If our form of government is not democratic, then what is it?
A country with a true democratic form of government can be compared to a ship without a compass and a rudder. Having no control over its course, with no means to determine which direction to take. The ship’s course is completely at the mercer and control of the wind.
The ship is the government, a compass is a set of core principles, the rudder is the rule of Law, and the wind is the people of that country.” True or simple democracy lacks a compass and a rudder and can only move in the direction and at a speed the wind dictates.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people, which results in mobocracy¹. And has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." Sound familiar
To quote Thomas Paine, who wrote The Rights of Man. "Simple democracy is society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By engrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature."
So what system or form of government do we have? I was taught in school back umpteen years ago that our form of government is a Representative Republic.
The definition of a Republic is:
A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution, which provides for the election of:
1) An executive and
2) A legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3) A judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4) Certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy². Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.
Federalist No. 48 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-eighth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on February 1, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This paper builds on Federalist No. 47. In that essay Madison argued for separation of powers; in this one he argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must not be totally divided. It is titled, "These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other."
Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948) said, “One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.” This statement is truer today then when it was originally spoken.
There are many Individuals and Groups who daily erode the constitution. This erosion is being accomplished by the strategy I spoke earlier about. One example is the propaganda put out that the first amendment of the constitution says there is a separation of church and state. These five words do not appear anywhere in the first amendment. They are taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in New England in the early 1800’s. You need to understand that groups and individual will take a few words from a sentence that they use to further their agenda and throw the rest of the sentence away.
Little by little our freedoms are being eroded away. It seems most people want to have someone else tell them what and whatnot to do and make decision for everyone, from safety to privacy in our homes. I don’t need you to protect me from myself! I don’t need someone to tell me that putting my head in a microwave and turning it on can kill me, if I don’t know the dangers of this action then my death will mean one less idiot you’ll have to worry about or put up with.
¹ The mass of common people as the source of political control or political control by a mob.
² Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The “speeches and debates” of the candidates
by: John Silveira
On January 22, on the CNN website, there was a poll asking: Have you listened to or watched any speeches or debates by the presidential candidates?
The choices were:
Speeches
Debates
Both
Neither
I voted. I checked “neither.”
Then I viewed the results. Here they were as of the moment I voted:
Percent # votes
Speeches 3% 536
Debates 14% 2374
Both 38% 6455
Neither 44% 7493
Total Votes: 16858
Those percentages will hold pretty constant even with thousands of more votes.
Why, you may ask, do I not bother to listen to the candidates’ debates nor their speeches?
Quite simply because what they say is more often than not meaningless. They say whatever they think they have to say to get elected. Often, what they say depends on who they are talking to. It often depends on what the polls say prospective voters want to hear. (It means these politicians are not standing on principles, they’re saying whatever they have to, to get elected.)
I remember a long-ago speech, before tobacco farmers by Al Gore in which he promised them his support. This contradicted anti-smoking speeches he made both before and after that speech, anti-smoking speeches he made to groups that were clearly against tobacco. Like most politicians, he was firmly in the camp of the wishy-washies.
I also recall that in 1980, friends urged me to vote for Reagan, instead of the Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark, because we had to get a liberal like Carter out and a conservative like Reagan in. I said I couldn’t vote for Reagan because he wasn’t a conservative, he was a big-government Republican. I based my opinion on what he did as governor of California and not on what he said in his campaign speeches. And, as it turned out, I was right.
After listening to these guys for years, I realize if there is any positive the correlation between what they say and what they do when they get into office it is more a matter of chance and coincidence than a matter of them keeping their promises.
They all promise smaller government, lower taxes, peace, etc. But, once in, those speeches and promises are forgotten.
As an aside, I thought it was laughable when Clinton ran for reelection, in 1996, and simply appropriated the Republican platform. Not that he intended to carry out any of the promises for smaller government, lower taxes, etc., that he ran on. It was just neat stuff to say. And, when he was reelected? All the promises were forgotten–by both the voters and the press.
I even asked liberal friends why they were voting for him when he was backing away from the liberal agenda. They, of course, didn’t answer and Bill, as I said, abandoned all the small-government rhetoric he’d gulled the swing voters with. I knew he’d do so. I imagine even his supporters knew his speeches were bullshit–lies–but they didn’t care.
However, if you really want to know where a candidate stands, and assuming he was previously in an elective office, look at his voting record in whatever legislative bodies he may have been in, look at his track record if he was a governor. What they’ve done in the past, they’re very likely to do in the future.
Only one of the candidates says what he means and means what he says, and that’s Ron Paul. His voting record in Congress is a reflection of his campaign speeches and what he says in the so-called “debates.” But I don’t listen to him, either, because I already know what he’ll do if elected. He’s not going to say anything in his speeches or the debates that he hasn’t said and done before. He’s the only one there I trust. He’s the only one up there not trying to snow you.
I’ll vote for him even if he doesn’t run.
On January 22, on the CNN website, there was a poll asking: Have you listened to or watched any speeches or debates by the presidential candidates?
The choices were:
Speeches
Debates
Both
Neither
I voted. I checked “neither.”
Then I viewed the results. Here they were as of the moment I voted:
Percent # votes
Speeches 3% 536
Debates 14% 2374
Both 38% 6455
Neither 44% 7493
Total Votes: 16858
Those percentages will hold pretty constant even with thousands of more votes.
Why, you may ask, do I not bother to listen to the candidates’ debates nor their speeches?
Quite simply because what they say is more often than not meaningless. They say whatever they think they have to say to get elected. Often, what they say depends on who they are talking to. It often depends on what the polls say prospective voters want to hear. (It means these politicians are not standing on principles, they’re saying whatever they have to, to get elected.)
I remember a long-ago speech, before tobacco farmers by Al Gore in which he promised them his support. This contradicted anti-smoking speeches he made both before and after that speech, anti-smoking speeches he made to groups that were clearly against tobacco. Like most politicians, he was firmly in the camp of the wishy-washies.
I also recall that in 1980, friends urged me to vote for Reagan, instead of the Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark, because we had to get a liberal like Carter out and a conservative like Reagan in. I said I couldn’t vote for Reagan because he wasn’t a conservative, he was a big-government Republican. I based my opinion on what he did as governor of California and not on what he said in his campaign speeches. And, as it turned out, I was right.
After listening to these guys for years, I realize if there is any positive the correlation between what they say and what they do when they get into office it is more a matter of chance and coincidence than a matter of them keeping their promises.
They all promise smaller government, lower taxes, peace, etc. But, once in, those speeches and promises are forgotten.
As an aside, I thought it was laughable when Clinton ran for reelection, in 1996, and simply appropriated the Republican platform. Not that he intended to carry out any of the promises for smaller government, lower taxes, etc., that he ran on. It was just neat stuff to say. And, when he was reelected? All the promises were forgotten–by both the voters and the press.
I even asked liberal friends why they were voting for him when he was backing away from the liberal agenda. They, of course, didn’t answer and Bill, as I said, abandoned all the small-government rhetoric he’d gulled the swing voters with. I knew he’d do so. I imagine even his supporters knew his speeches were bullshit–lies–but they didn’t care.
However, if you really want to know where a candidate stands, and assuming he was previously in an elective office, look at his voting record in whatever legislative bodies he may have been in, look at his track record if he was a governor. What they’ve done in the past, they’re very likely to do in the future.
Only one of the candidates says what he means and means what he says, and that’s Ron Paul. His voting record in Congress is a reflection of his campaign speeches and what he says in the so-called “debates.” But I don’t listen to him, either, because I already know what he’ll do if elected. He’s not going to say anything in his speeches or the debates that he hasn’t said and done before. He’s the only one there I trust. He’s the only one up there not trying to snow you.
I’ll vote for him even if he doesn’t run.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Thinking For Yourself Is Now A Crime
Monday, January 07, 2008
by: Paul Craig Roberts
What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush's "surge" in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.
The American people's attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.
The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.
The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.
Harman's bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.
We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton under government contract.
Who will be on the "extremist beliefs" list? The answer is: civil libertarians, critics of Israel, 9/11 skeptics, critics of the administration's wars and foreign policies, critics of the administration's use of kidnapping, rendition, torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, and critics of the administration's spying on Americans. Anyone in the way of a powerful interest group--such as environmentalists opposing politically connected developers--is also a candidate for the list.
The "Extremist Beliefs Commission" is the mechanism for identifying Americans who pose "a threat to domestic security" and a threat of "homegrown terrorism" that "cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts."
This bill is a boon for nasty people. That SOB who stole your girlfriend, that hussy who stole your boyfriend, the gun owner next door--just report them to Homeland Security as holders of extreme beliefs. Homeland Security needs suspects, so they are not going to check. Under the new regime, accusation is evidence. Moreover, "our" elected representatives will never admit that they voted for a bill and created an "Extremist Belief Commission" for which there is neither need nor constitutional basis.
That boss who harasses you for coming late to work--he's a good candidate to be reported; so is that minority employee that you can't fire for any normal reason. So is the husband of that good-looking woman you have been unable to seduce. Every kind of quarrel and jealousy can now be settled with a phone call to Homeland Security.
Soon Halliburton will be building more detention centers.
Americans are so far removed from the roots of their liberty that they just don't get it. Most Americans don't know what habeas corpus is or why it is important to them. But they know what they want, and Jane Harman has given them a new way to settle scores and to advance their own interests.
Even educated liberals believe that the US Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to accommodate some new important cause, such as abortion and legal privileges for minorities and the handicapped. Today it is the "war on terror" that the Constitution must accommodate. Tomorrow it can be the war on whomever or whatever.
Think about it. More than six years ago the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. The US government blamed it on al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report has been subjected to criticism by a large number of qualified people--including the commission's chairman and co-chairman.
Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the US. The FBI has tried to orchestrate a few, but the "terrorist plots" never got beyond talk organized and led by FBI agents. There are no visible extremist groups other than the neoconservatives that control the government in Washington. But somehow the House of Representatives overwhelmingly sees a need to create a commission to take testimony and search out extremist views (outside of Washington, of course).
This search for extremist views comes after President Bush and the Justice (sic) Department declared that the President can ignore habeas corpus, ignore the Geneva Conventions, seize people without evidence, hold them indefinitely without presenting charges, torture them until they confess to some made up crime, and take over the government by declaring an emergency. Of course, none of these "patriotic" views are extremist.
The search for extremist views follows also the granting of contracts to Halliburton to build detention centers in the US. No member of Congress or the executive branch ever explained the need for the detention centers or who the detainees would be. Of course, there is nothing extremist about building detention centers in the US for undisclosed inmates.
Clearly the detention centers are not meant to just stand there empty. Thanks to 2007's greatest failure--the Democratic Congress--there is to be an "Extremist Beliefs Commission" to secure inmates for Bush's detention centers.
President Bush promises us that the wars he has launched will cause the "untamed fire of freedom" to "reach the darkest corners of our world." Meanwhile in America the fire of freedom has not only been tamed but also is being extinguished.
The light of liberty has gone out in the United States.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076152553X/counterpunchmaga
The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
by: Paul Craig Roberts
What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush's "surge" in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.
The American people's attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.
The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.
The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.
Harman's bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.
We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton under government contract.
Who will be on the "extremist beliefs" list? The answer is: civil libertarians, critics of Israel, 9/11 skeptics, critics of the administration's wars and foreign policies, critics of the administration's use of kidnapping, rendition, torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, and critics of the administration's spying on Americans. Anyone in the way of a powerful interest group--such as environmentalists opposing politically connected developers--is also a candidate for the list.
The "Extremist Beliefs Commission" is the mechanism for identifying Americans who pose "a threat to domestic security" and a threat of "homegrown terrorism" that "cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts."
This bill is a boon for nasty people. That SOB who stole your girlfriend, that hussy who stole your boyfriend, the gun owner next door--just report them to Homeland Security as holders of extreme beliefs. Homeland Security needs suspects, so they are not going to check. Under the new regime, accusation is evidence. Moreover, "our" elected representatives will never admit that they voted for a bill and created an "Extremist Belief Commission" for which there is neither need nor constitutional basis.
That boss who harasses you for coming late to work--he's a good candidate to be reported; so is that minority employee that you can't fire for any normal reason. So is the husband of that good-looking woman you have been unable to seduce. Every kind of quarrel and jealousy can now be settled with a phone call to Homeland Security.
Soon Halliburton will be building more detention centers.
Americans are so far removed from the roots of their liberty that they just don't get it. Most Americans don't know what habeas corpus is or why it is important to them. But they know what they want, and Jane Harman has given them a new way to settle scores and to advance their own interests.
Even educated liberals believe that the US Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to accommodate some new important cause, such as abortion and legal privileges for minorities and the handicapped. Today it is the "war on terror" that the Constitution must accommodate. Tomorrow it can be the war on whomever or whatever.
Think about it. More than six years ago the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. The US government blamed it on al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report has been subjected to criticism by a large number of qualified people--including the commission's chairman and co-chairman.
Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the US. The FBI has tried to orchestrate a few, but the "terrorist plots" never got beyond talk organized and led by FBI agents. There are no visible extremist groups other than the neoconservatives that control the government in Washington. But somehow the House of Representatives overwhelmingly sees a need to create a commission to take testimony and search out extremist views (outside of Washington, of course).
This search for extremist views comes after President Bush and the Justice (sic) Department declared that the President can ignore habeas corpus, ignore the Geneva Conventions, seize people without evidence, hold them indefinitely without presenting charges, torture them until they confess to some made up crime, and take over the government by declaring an emergency. Of course, none of these "patriotic" views are extremist.
The search for extremist views follows also the granting of contracts to Halliburton to build detention centers in the US. No member of Congress or the executive branch ever explained the need for the detention centers or who the detainees would be. Of course, there is nothing extremist about building detention centers in the US for undisclosed inmates.
Clearly the detention centers are not meant to just stand there empty. Thanks to 2007's greatest failure--the Democratic Congress--there is to be an "Extremist Beliefs Commission" to secure inmates for Bush's detention centers.
President Bush promises us that the wars he has launched will cause the "untamed fire of freedom" to "reach the darkest corners of our world." Meanwhile in America the fire of freedom has not only been tamed but also is being extinguished.
The light of liberty has gone out in the United States.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076152553X/counterpunchmaga
The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Liberals and others
The big government vs big business paradigm diverts attention from the international bankers who run both. It places the blame on capitalism and the U.S., which has been under internation banking cartel control for at least a century. It teaches each new generation to be alienated from their country, culture and economic system, and to become dysfunctional and impotent.
The bankers love socialism and Big Government. They have a monopoly of money and need a monopoly of power (i.e. government.) Together, these international banker monopolies are the essence of liberals, socialists etc. and are using elected officials, who they control, to bribe the people with social services and jobs which create debt and higher profits for bankers.
Modern world history is nothing but the process by which this satanic force is replacing Western Civilization with an occult world police state managed by taser and television. The whole world is being colonized by this imperialist financial power, which is behind all left, liberal, Communist and revolutionary movements. What they call "progressive" is progress only in their occult terms.
Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
The world is in the advanced stages of a diabolical multi generational conspiracy. Our educators, elected politicians, mainstream media, plus cable news have largely been subverted.
The ruling classes have been hoodwinked to believe they are building a Brave New World. In fact they are accomplices in the mental, spiritual and possibly physical enslavement of humanity.
Thus, a person such as Ron Paul and anyone like him who favors individual freedom along with self-reliance, family, nation, and smaller government, God and believes in following the Constitution are labeled “Rightwing Crackpots”. These are the people and things that internationalisms are out to destroy.
I favor individual freedom, self-reliance, family, freedom from government interference. I also believe in free expression, if this makes me a rightwing crackpot, so be it. I believe in the power the three boxes, the soapbox, the ballot box and the ammunition box. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primary and general elections.
The bankers love socialism and Big Government. They have a monopoly of money and need a monopoly of power (i.e. government.) Together, these international banker monopolies are the essence of liberals, socialists etc. and are using elected officials, who they control, to bribe the people with social services and jobs which create debt and higher profits for bankers.
Modern world history is nothing but the process by which this satanic force is replacing Western Civilization with an occult world police state managed by taser and television. The whole world is being colonized by this imperialist financial power, which is behind all left, liberal, Communist and revolutionary movements. What they call "progressive" is progress only in their occult terms.
Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
The world is in the advanced stages of a diabolical multi generational conspiracy. Our educators, elected politicians, mainstream media, plus cable news have largely been subverted.
The ruling classes have been hoodwinked to believe they are building a Brave New World. In fact they are accomplices in the mental, spiritual and possibly physical enslavement of humanity.
Thus, a person such as Ron Paul and anyone like him who favors individual freedom along with self-reliance, family, nation, and smaller government, God and believes in following the Constitution are labeled “Rightwing Crackpots”. These are the people and things that internationalisms are out to destroy.
I favor individual freedom, self-reliance, family, freedom from government interference. I also believe in free expression, if this makes me a rightwing crackpot, so be it. I believe in the power the three boxes, the soapbox, the ballot box and the ammunition box. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primary and general elections.
Monday, December 10, 2007
WHAT ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY?
IS IT FOR AMERICAN INDIAN NATIONS?:
The dictionary lists sovereignty as a synonym for freedom but in reality there is a significant difference between the meaning of the two words. “Freedom is the absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, or repression.” while sovereignty is “above or superior to all others; chief, greatest, supreme”. Freedom has to do with action and sovereignty has to do with station.
Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized Native American nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries.- Source Wikipedia
Sovereign sets the legal standard and determines the perspective from which decisions emanate and is dangerous when it is improperly used.
All sovereignty is granted by our Creator. God's Laws are to be obeyed and His dominion enforced. Human sovereignty not proscribed by our Creator's control is always tyrannical. It is the pathway to chaos and death.
The Government of the United States and American Indian Tribes is misusing sovereignty by attempting to exert control over God’s creation without regard for His Laws and His Kingship, which is bringing disaster upon individual American Indians.
American Indians are living in an Alice in Wonderland world in regards to His/Her sovereignty.
The dictionary lists sovereignty as a synonym for freedom but in reality there is a significant difference between the meaning of the two words. “Freedom is the absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, or repression.” while sovereignty is “above or superior to all others; chief, greatest, supreme”. Freedom has to do with action and sovereignty has to do with station.
Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized Native American nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries.- Source Wikipedia
Sovereign sets the legal standard and determines the perspective from which decisions emanate and is dangerous when it is improperly used.
All sovereignty is granted by our Creator. God's Laws are to be obeyed and His dominion enforced. Human sovereignty not proscribed by our Creator's control is always tyrannical. It is the pathway to chaos and death.
The Government of the United States and American Indian Tribes is misusing sovereignty by attempting to exert control over God’s creation without regard for His Laws and His Kingship, which is bringing disaster upon individual American Indians.
American Indians are living in an Alice in Wonderland world in regards to His/Her sovereignty.
Friday, December 7, 2007
GROVELING TO A FALSE GOD
In recent times, the ideology in the policies of some Tribal Nations has been about power and the benefits power brings, one benefit is control of the Tribal purse string.
The biggest threat is the control power and money has over a society and that is where the real potential for evil is and where totalitarian societies can inflict horrors upon individuals.
Now, there are those who will argue that power and money are intertwined and are one in the same and they have a point. Money might be the first object of the average person, but eventually the realization emerges that power can be a very ease and productive route to wealth and vice versa.
Modern history is the account of how the central banking cartel converts its monopoly of credit into a monopoly of power. This entails destroying your connection with nation, religion (God), race and family. It means substituting objective truth (God, nature) with their Dictate (political correctness, etc.)
Tribal members have been sold out, "by their leaders", dumbed down by the media, under educated, and spoiled stupid by the tribal welfare state. (Anyone can be bought.) They either refuse to recognize what is happening or are too afraid to speak out because of the threat of dis-enrollment.
They believe they have prosperity and think they are free.
As Aldous Huxley said:
"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves WHO DO NOT HAVE TO BE COERCED, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." [Brave New World, Bantam Books, 1967, p. xii. Caps added.]
On the bright side, the knowledge that American Indian Tribal Government’s and the societies they've create is a fraud and doomed to fail, is strangely liberating. You will no longer need to touch your knee to the ground and grovel to this false god when it happens. "The truth does make you free!"
The biggest threat is the control power and money has over a society and that is where the real potential for evil is and where totalitarian societies can inflict horrors upon individuals.
Now, there are those who will argue that power and money are intertwined and are one in the same and they have a point. Money might be the first object of the average person, but eventually the realization emerges that power can be a very ease and productive route to wealth and vice versa.
Modern history is the account of how the central banking cartel converts its monopoly of credit into a monopoly of power. This entails destroying your connection with nation, religion (God), race and family. It means substituting objective truth (God, nature) with their Dictate (political correctness, etc.)
Tribal members have been sold out, "by their leaders", dumbed down by the media, under educated, and spoiled stupid by the tribal welfare state. (Anyone can be bought.) They either refuse to recognize what is happening or are too afraid to speak out because of the threat of dis-enrollment.
They believe they have prosperity and think they are free.
As Aldous Huxley said:
"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves WHO DO NOT HAVE TO BE COERCED, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." [Brave New World, Bantam Books, 1967, p. xii. Caps added.]
On the bright side, the knowledge that American Indian Tribal Government’s and the societies they've create is a fraud and doomed to fail, is strangely liberating. You will no longer need to touch your knee to the ground and grovel to this false god when it happens. "The truth does make you free!"
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Devastation of American Indian Tribes
Since law creates the religion of a nation, engagement in the political arena is a righteous endeavor. But when victory involves the use of questionable procedures the process becomes evil. Politics in the United States provides a fundamental lesson in Hegelian Dialectics. Compromise with evil is standard practice; there are questionable coalitions, outright mendacity, consorts with the Devil, and manipulation of naïve voters. Victory is sought without regard to its cost. Most tribes and their members within Indian country have fallen into this trap.
Political decisions made by ferocious, unctuous elected leaders in organizations like the Pechanga, the Oneida, and a number of other American Indian Nations, are devastating tribal unity. By electing duplicitous individuals into leadership positions who promise tribal members a few crumbs from the Hog’s Trough while they, themselves, will be feasting on world governance and other inimical programs. Individual American Indian Tribal members are hoodwinked; their vote promotes an evil agenda.
It appears these Indian Tribes’, whose leaders, hold substantial sway over voting members cherishes their ability to manipulate the political process and are willing to relinquish the exclusivity of their spiritual beliefs in an evil pragmatic effort to secure victory for anyone who promises them a larger position of the slop at the Hog’s Trough. The fact that they may not understand the evil nature of Hegel and his Dialectic and are practicing it unwittingly does not mitigate the devastating effects it has on the unity of their tribes.
The cause of this evil can be summed up in three words: Apathy, Enmity, and Greed! These causes are like malignant tumors and if left un-treated will destroy the body. Any nation that either fails to acknowledge or is unable to discern reality and make decisions in its best interests from an accurate assessment is destined for destruction.
There are a number of evil independent conspiracies operating in parallel, highly organized, powerful, working to hold mankind in a satanic vice. Yet their actions show they're full of hate, in love with death, consumed by avarice. Courage and truth comes hard to them.What is needed are statesmen not pompous tenacious leaders who are unable to refrain from using subterfuge and turpitude.
If this steps on some toes, so be it. Don’t expect an apologue! Hopefully this will open some eyes and shed some light on one cause of an evil disease infecting Indian Country”…
Political decisions made by ferocious, unctuous elected leaders in organizations like the Pechanga, the Oneida, and a number of other American Indian Nations, are devastating tribal unity. By electing duplicitous individuals into leadership positions who promise tribal members a few crumbs from the Hog’s Trough while they, themselves, will be feasting on world governance and other inimical programs. Individual American Indian Tribal members are hoodwinked; their vote promotes an evil agenda.
It appears these Indian Tribes’, whose leaders, hold substantial sway over voting members cherishes their ability to manipulate the political process and are willing to relinquish the exclusivity of their spiritual beliefs in an evil pragmatic effort to secure victory for anyone who promises them a larger position of the slop at the Hog’s Trough. The fact that they may not understand the evil nature of Hegel and his Dialectic and are practicing it unwittingly does not mitigate the devastating effects it has on the unity of their tribes.
The cause of this evil can be summed up in three words: Apathy, Enmity, and Greed! These causes are like malignant tumors and if left un-treated will destroy the body. Any nation that either fails to acknowledge or is unable to discern reality and make decisions in its best interests from an accurate assessment is destined for destruction.
There are a number of evil independent conspiracies operating in parallel, highly organized, powerful, working to hold mankind in a satanic vice. Yet their actions show they're full of hate, in love with death, consumed by avarice. Courage and truth comes hard to them.What is needed are statesmen not pompous tenacious leaders who are unable to refrain from using subterfuge and turpitude.
If this steps on some toes, so be it. Don’t expect an apologue! Hopefully this will open some eyes and shed some light on one cause of an evil disease infecting Indian Country”…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
