Health Czar, Interrupted
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 2:45 PM
0 Comments
Saturday, October 17, 2009
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The Nobel Police Prize
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 11:43 AM
0 Comments
Stone in My Hand
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:40 AM
0 Comments
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Move to Depopulate the Planet
by Stephanie R. Pasco
It is my intention to give you clips from documents, many from the United Nations that prove there is a plan to depopulate this planet. I will also provide quotes from various people and organizations that further show this agenda is afoot. I pray the guidance of the Lord God Almighty will be with me in this pursuit to warn others of this dark plot against humanity.
Everything written in this paper is easily verifiable. It may take some time and effort, but I took great pains to make this paper as accurate as I possibly could.
The depopulation agenda is based on nature worship, or Gaia worship. In Genesis, God clearly told Adam and Eve, and then Noah and his family to go forth and multiply to fill the earth. Nowhere in the Bible does God rescind that clearly spoken commandment. Therefore man is attempting to supercede the command of the Lord God in heaven: The Creator! I ask you, who knows more about the state of the earth, the created, or the Creator?
The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:
The Hegelian Dialectic:
Problem – Reaction-Solution
Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution
You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.
I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.
Aldous Huxley
William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)
“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Mikhail Gorbachev:
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:
“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”
Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:
“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way...Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”
Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:
“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”
Jacques Cousteau
Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:
“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”
Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:
“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”
“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”
Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority...”
Henry Kissinger, 1978:
“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”
David Rockefeller, 2000:
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:
“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:
David Rockefeller
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975):
“There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.
“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950’s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.
President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding
Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:
“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed...”
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt:
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity...” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed...”
By Carl Teichrib:
“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:
Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.
Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.
Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):
“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other...One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’...we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow...Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds.
Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity...”
Henry Kissinger
Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:
“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.
Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.
Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.
I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:
“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”
“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U.S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”
“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” -Michael Coffman
UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:
“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”
That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. -Michael Coffman
UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:
“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”
“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. -Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”
“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman
“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:
The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”
This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.
Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document
“Soylent green is... humans.”
Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources...” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)
This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.
“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:
“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i.e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”
Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.
World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):
The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.N. Environmental Program, etc. .
IUCN 1992
Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”
“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens.” -Michael Coffman
Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.
This document has never been renounced, only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U.S. Government.
The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:
Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank
The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:
http://www.usmutes.com/NSSM200.htm
Adolph Hitler
Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.
Now we will cover the Earth Charter.
The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics.” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”
The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in population!
According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy -put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War).
The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values ...a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. ”
In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.
According to the Charter, we must:
* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)
* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)
* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)
* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)
* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)
* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)
* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)
* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
Earth Charter
The Earth Charter has not been ratified. Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!
The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.
In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. -Wikipedia
America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.
Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow
CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009. In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Why? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.
From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:
“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U.N.
According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths; 1 billion due through starvation. The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition.”
“The U.N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U.N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””
In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.
As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!
Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.
Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)
Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a.k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.
Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.
Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures. This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.
“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros
“Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros
Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?
Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution!
The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i.e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.
In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.
I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.
If you find this to be worthy, please, spread it everywhere you can. Email it, blog it, post it on forums; mail it. Do what you must. People are asleep. They must be woken up. Forced immunizations are right around the corner. These things will come to pass. It is our job to warn people. Please, I ask you, warn them.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
It is my intention to give you clips from documents, many from the United Nations that prove there is a plan to depopulate this planet. I will also provide quotes from various people and organizations that further show this agenda is afoot. I pray the guidance of the Lord God Almighty will be with me in this pursuit to warn others of this dark plot against humanity.
Everything written in this paper is easily verifiable. It may take some time and effort, but I took great pains to make this paper as accurate as I possibly could.
The depopulation agenda is based on nature worship, or Gaia worship. In Genesis, God clearly told Adam and Eve, and then Noah and his family to go forth and multiply to fill the earth. Nowhere in the Bible does God rescind that clearly spoken commandment. Therefore man is attempting to supercede the command of the Lord God in heaven: The Creator! I ask you, who knows more about the state of the earth, the created, or the Creator?
The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:
The Hegelian Dialectic:
Problem – Reaction-Solution
Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution
You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.
I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.
Aldous Huxley
William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)
“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.”
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Mikhail Gorbachev:
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:
“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”
Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:
“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way...Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”
Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:
“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”
Jacques Cousteau
Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:
“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”
Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:
“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”
“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”
Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority...”
Henry Kissinger, 1978:
“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”
David Rockefeller, 2000:
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:
“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:
David Rockefeller
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975):
“There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.
“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:
“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950’s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.
President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding
Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:
“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed...”
Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt:
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity...” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed...”
By Carl Teichrib:
“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”
Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:
Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.
Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”
Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.
Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):
“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other...One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’...we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow...Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds.
Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity...”
Henry Kissinger
Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:
“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.
Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.
Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.
I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:
“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”
“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U.S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”
“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” -Michael Coffman
UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:
“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”
That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. -Michael Coffman
UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:
“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”
“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. -Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”
“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman
“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:
The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”
This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.
Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document
“Soylent green is... humans.”
Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources...” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)
This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.
“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman
UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:
“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i.e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”
Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.
World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):
The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.N. Environmental Program, etc. .
IUCN 1992
Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”
“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens.” -Michael Coffman
Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.
This document has never been renounced, only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U.S. Government.
The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:
Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank
The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:
http://www.usmutes.com/NSSM200.htm
Adolph Hitler
Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.
Now we will cover the Earth Charter.
The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics.” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”
The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in population!
According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy -put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War).
The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values ...a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. ”
In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.
According to the Charter, we must:
* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)
* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)
* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)
* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)
* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)
* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)
* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)
* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
Earth Charter
The Earth Charter has not been ratified. Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!
The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.
In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. -Wikipedia
America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.
Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow
CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009. In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Why? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.
From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:
“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U.N.
According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths; 1 billion due through starvation. The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition.”
“The U.N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U.N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””
In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.
As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!
Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.
Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)
Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a.k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.
Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.
Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures. This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.
“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros
“Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros
Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?
Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution!
The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i.e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.
In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.
I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.
If you find this to be worthy, please, spread it everywhere you can. Email it, blog it, post it on forums; mail it. Do what you must. People are asleep. They must be woken up. Forced immunizations are right around the corner. These things will come to pass. It is our job to warn people. Please, I ask you, warn them.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:12 AM
2 Comments
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Gun owners face stricter regulations
KSBY.com
The governor signed a new bill into law on Monday, October 12. The move is sparking mixed reaction.
The new law requires stores that sell ammunition to keep track of every customer who makes a purchase.
The idea is that local law enforcement can use the records to find illegal guns.
It also requires store owners to keep hand gun ammunition behind the counter or in some other "safe" place.
A thumbprint will be taken from anyone purchasing bullets and customers will also have to provide a valid California driver's license.
Most gun owners will tell you the right to bear arms is the most important of all of our inalienable rights.
They say the second amendment helps enforce the other amendments.
Gun Owner, Nelson Dymond says, "It's another chip at getting guns out of people's hands. If you don't have ammunition what good is the gun."
Dymond is disappointed the governor signed the bill.
He says all it does is make things harder for law abiding citizens.
"The more law we put in the more it favors the gang banger because you and I don't have a gun to protect ourselves. We don't have ammunition to protect ourselves and therefore, the gang bangers is a nice brave little gut out there because he knows nobody can shoot back at him", says Dymond.
Not everyone thinks along those same lines. Mark Buchman supports gun control. He says, "I just can't believe that anyone, anyone would be opposed to it."
Buchman believes any law that places tougher regulations on gun owners is a good thing.
He says as long as you're a law abiding citizen you've got nothing to worry about.
Adds, "I give my thumb print when I sometimes have to cash a check at a bank. Oh my God. Is that an imposition on my freedom? There's a speed limit on the freeway. Is that an imposition on my rights? No. It's part of living in a society."
Two very different view points.
But, both sides say they want what's best for the people of California and that's to keep them safe. Exactly how to do that is still up for debate.
Los Angeles and Sacramento have similar ordinances already in place.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The governor signed a new bill into law on Monday, October 12. The move is sparking mixed reaction.
The new law requires stores that sell ammunition to keep track of every customer who makes a purchase.
The idea is that local law enforcement can use the records to find illegal guns.
It also requires store owners to keep hand gun ammunition behind the counter or in some other "safe" place.
A thumbprint will be taken from anyone purchasing bullets and customers will also have to provide a valid California driver's license.
Most gun owners will tell you the right to bear arms is the most important of all of our inalienable rights.
They say the second amendment helps enforce the other amendments.
Gun Owner, Nelson Dymond says, "It's another chip at getting guns out of people's hands. If you don't have ammunition what good is the gun."
Dymond is disappointed the governor signed the bill.
He says all it does is make things harder for law abiding citizens.
"The more law we put in the more it favors the gang banger because you and I don't have a gun to protect ourselves. We don't have ammunition to protect ourselves and therefore, the gang bangers is a nice brave little gut out there because he knows nobody can shoot back at him", says Dymond.
Not everyone thinks along those same lines. Mark Buchman supports gun control. He says, "I just can't believe that anyone, anyone would be opposed to it."
Buchman believes any law that places tougher regulations on gun owners is a good thing.
He says as long as you're a law abiding citizen you've got nothing to worry about.
Adds, "I give my thumb print when I sometimes have to cash a check at a bank. Oh my God. Is that an imposition on my freedom? There's a speed limit on the freeway. Is that an imposition on my rights? No. It's part of living in a society."
Two very different view points.
But, both sides say they want what's best for the people of California and that's to keep them safe. Exactly how to do that is still up for debate.
Los Angeles and Sacramento have similar ordinances already in place.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:08 PM
1 Comments
Is Gun Control Racist?
by Wilton D. Alston
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~ George Mason
Rather than keep the reader guessing until the end, I’ll answer the question that heads this essay right now, before I go any further. Absolutely, positively, without question, without qualification, the answer is, "Yes!" If you don’t need further convincing or want to get back to an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," please consider yourself excused. (It is, easily, one of the funniest shows on all of TV. I understand completely.)
A number of events conspired to cause me to examine this issue. In the aftermath of my most recent essay on Plaxico Burress and his bogus conviction for shooting himself, I received quite a bit of positive feedback. One of the most interesting pieces came from a representative of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. JFPO has produced a movie entitled, "No Guns for Negroes." It is one of the most poignant and informative pieces on this subject. (On a personal note, I had not felt the visceral anger that this film engendered in a long time. My emotional state when I first finished reading, "Twelve Years a Slave" was close, though. I will try to not let my emotions spill over into this essay, but I can’t make any promises.)
The Issue, True and False
I’ve heard a disturbingly-large number of people make the following statement. "Plaxico Burress was dumb!" as a way to, apparently, justify his treatment. One person even remarked that Plax deserved to be in jail for being so stupid. (I reckon that was a joke; nevertheless, further editorial comments strewn with curse words redacted.) Frankly, I have no clue if Plax Burress is intelligent or not. I also don’t know what his favorite flavor of ice cream might be. Both those tidbits have equal relevance to the issue of gun control generally and what happened to him specifically.
More important though is this. Intelligence tests have a long and storied history in the quest of the State to keep the black man firmly in his place. If people really wonder if a victim of draconian statist violence masquerading as law and order is "smart" or not – and think that issue matters one iota – then the descendants of the racist bastards who initially conspired to strip black folk of the ability to defend themselves can proclaim "Mission Accomplished" and put another shrimp on the barbeque.
The fact of the matter is this: Dating back to the Antebellum South and beyond, the State has enacted laws specifically designed to keep black folk unarmed. This is not debatable, nor a matter of perspective. It is a matter of fact. The jailing of Plaxico Burress should not be viewed as an isolated event, simply the fallout of a careless high-profile citizen. It is the fruit of a racist tree planted in 18th century America, a tree that continues to bear fruit even in 2009. Consulting a paper on the racist history of gun control in Georgia produced by GeorgiaCarry.org, one finds this informative quote from Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford commenting on the practice of developing seemingly race-neutral gun control laws that – in reality – selectively applied only to blacks:
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and sawmill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.
You can’t ask for more honesty than that. But, you may ask, how can I draw a similar conclusion about the laws of the City of New York? Isn’t it clear that people like Mayor Bloomberg are genuinely concerned about the safety of all citizens? No. Hell no. How do I know? Let us examine another large U.S. city, Chicago, IL.
Disarmed Negroes, Not Just Fun During Slavery
In a piece entitled, "Chicago, gun control, and racism" we find this nugget:
Between 2000 and 2006, Chicago, home of the handgun ban, saw an [sic] handguns comprise a 43.2% larger portion of all homicides, increasing from 55.5% to 79.5% of all homicide methods. Firearm usage increased 24.7%, from 65.6% to 81.8% of all homicide methods. …Meanwhile, for the rest of Illinois, firearm usage decreased 16.0%, from 72.3% to 60.7%. (Handgun data not available.)
What does this mean? It means in the City of Chicago, where draconian gun-control quite similar to that of New York City exists, crime has increased. Not only that, but the crime has increased selectively in black neighborhoods. (You’ll have to read the whole article to glean that tidbit.) Wouldn’t that mean that one should do more to disarm criminals? If it were possible to disarm criminals selectively – and only in that event – such an obvious conclusion might make sense. Of course, such selective disarmament is nigh impossible. A better approach – an approach grounded in logic – is reflected by three points I made in an essay from quite a while back. That essay attempted to speak to anarchy, but the points I made relate directly to why widespread ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens must necessarily drive violence down. This issue is important enough that I’ll restate those points in their entirety here:
The fog of war is preserved.
The primary result of any coercively implemented government attempts at disarming evil people is the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. Gun-control advocates, like those mentioned by Richard Poe in "The Disarming of Black America," seem to believe that an authoritarian crackdown on having firearms will reduce violence by making everyone equal, i.e., equally unarmed. The fact of the matter is this can never, ever happen. The example of Kennesaw, GA provides a direct proof of the falsity of this premise. Cesare Beccaria, a legal theorist from the 1700's (who some believe greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson), explains why with this unassailable logic.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
Stated differently, those who respond to laws, such as turning-in unregistered weapons, are, by definition, law-abiding citizens. They are not the ones about whom we have to worry! Those who have no plan to obey the laws are unimpressed by such pleas. Worse yet, they expect that those they hope to prey on will respond to such requests. As a result, they know that their victims are unarmed. Few things can embolden a person who has the tendency to aggress against another like knowing for a fact that he is safe to do so.
The argument from morality is honored.
One of the underlying assumptions in every environment where citizens have been disarmed via state coercion is that certain people, and only these people, are qualified and empowered to partake in certain practices. For example, the police are always armed. No one in his right mind would suggest otherwise. What objective moral criterion makes a policeman different than a regular citizen in this regard? Is it the uniform? Unlikely – uniforms provide no qualification in and of themselves. Is it the training? No – anyone can be trained. Is it via the consent of the governed? No – I am unqualified and unable to bestow a right away that I do not have.
Stated hypothetically, I cannot reasonably suggest that an acquaintance of mine (call him "Bob") can have a gun, while simultaneously requiring that another acquaintance (call him "Rob") cannot be armed. What is different about the police, and who made it so? Bob, Rob, and I are of the same species, sharing the same natural rights and privileges, and endowed with the same frailties. Only mysticism or irrationality can justify my elevation of one or the other to a status that we each cannot obtain on our own. (As an aside, some may recognize this quality of anarchy as a direct – but somewhat simplified – restatement of the concept of universalizability.) Whatever one prefers to call it, the same conclusion can be drawn.
The opportunity cost for violence remains appropriate.
When a criminal knows his victims are unarmed, his opportunity cost for violence is artificially lowered. Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, when those ostensibly authorized to "serve and protect" know that they – and only they – can inflict "lawful" violence upon others, they have a tendency to overreact when faced with a choice to use violence. Each time we hear about a citizen being shot multiple times by groups of police, or policemen actually breaking the law by selling drugs or other contraband, this truism is fully illustrated. Yet, when no one has an advantage – and generally only then – everyone is enticed to act accordingly.
When I was a kid, although there were occasional fights, most of them amounted only to shoving matches. Often, even the most ardent emotional dispute would end up with two kids staring each other down face-to-face and nothing more. Thinking back upon these "interactions," the simple wisdom of one of our sayings about them strikes me. We would often say to anyone watching one of these staring matches, "One of them is scared and the other one is glad of it!" That, sports fans, is the essence of appropriate opportunity cost. Basic logic dictates: if you know you’re going to have to pay for the aggression, you are generally slower to take part in it.
Anyone who thinks the opportunity costs for criminals looking to act out violently in Chicago is not reduced by widespread citizen disarmament is sadly, and cataclysmically, mistaken. (If recent biting essays from Will Grigg on the tendency of law givers to infringe upon their subjects don’t convince you that opportunity costs, not only for criminals, but also ostensive law-enforcers, affect behavior, I don’t know what will.)
A Psychological Perspective and a Historical One
When a buddy of mine read the essay from which the above three points were taken, he remarked to me that the terminology, "fog of war," made him uncomfortable. Thinking of our society as a place where war between citizens is a constant possibility should make one uncomfortable. Here’s the important point, stated as an equation: Being Armed <> Being Violent. Being armed is not equivalent to being violent. In fact, exactly the opposite is true of the vast majority of citizens. However, and this is where it gets dicey, those who wish to infringe don’t really care that much about being peaceful. Quoting myself from yet another essay on the Right to Bear Arms:
Have you ever met a bully? Almost everyone can remember that kid back in high school who took advantage of the nerds and/or the weaker kids. Generally, he was bigger, but not surprisingly – if you understand his pathology – this guy never accosted the kids who could readily defend themselves. Why? Bullies are cowards…Gun-free zones – and any other places where people are known to be less able (or less willing) to defend themselves – tend to attract bullies and/or psychos.
No one should be worried about peaceful citizens becoming psychotic Rambo-clones the instant they obtain a gun – at least no one who rationally thinks about this. Everyone should be concerned about losers who want to infringe upon you knowing they can do so without the threat of specific, immediate, response. (As bad as it might sound, I wonder if Derrion Albert would still be alive today if he had been toting a burner. We’ll never know.) One more example from history seems appropriate. This comes from a Wikipedia article on United States v. Cruikshank. To wit:
On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100–280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night.
In the aftermath of the massacre, two of the shooters were indicted. (Two? Sure, the law can protect a brother!) After a series of appeals and all the normal constitutional grandstanding and precise reading, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions. Furthermore, the Court ruled, essentially, that the laws of the nation did not apply in the case of individuals infringing upon one another. Quoting directly, "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another." I actually agree with that statement. What troubles me, however, is how that ruling was used to allow for paramilitary groups to attack blacks with impunity. Returning to the article, we find:
In the short term, blacks in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, who did little to protect them…The Cruikshank case effectively enabled political parties' use of paramilitary forces.
Conclusion
I don’t want to shoot anyone, and, honestly, I never have. I agree wholeheartedly with whoever first uttered the powerful phrase, "There is no way to peace; peace is the way." I don’t expect that many who are reading this essay feel differently. That said, when and if someone attempted to infringe directly upon me, I suspect I’d feel way better being able to defend myself versus having the legislature (or the cops) on speed dial. Your safety and freedom is your responsibility. It always was. It always will be. This sentiment is expressed more eloquently in a piece entitled, "76 Reasons to Have a Gun" with "a right exercised is a right retained." Those who endeavor to take the ability to defend that safety and freedom away from you do not have your best interests at heart. They never did.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~ George Mason
Rather than keep the reader guessing until the end, I’ll answer the question that heads this essay right now, before I go any further. Absolutely, positively, without question, without qualification, the answer is, "Yes!" If you don’t need further convincing or want to get back to an episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," please consider yourself excused. (It is, easily, one of the funniest shows on all of TV. I understand completely.)
A number of events conspired to cause me to examine this issue. In the aftermath of my most recent essay on Plaxico Burress and his bogus conviction for shooting himself, I received quite a bit of positive feedback. One of the most interesting pieces came from a representative of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. JFPO has produced a movie entitled, "No Guns for Negroes." It is one of the most poignant and informative pieces on this subject. (On a personal note, I had not felt the visceral anger that this film engendered in a long time. My emotional state when I first finished reading, "Twelve Years a Slave" was close, though. I will try to not let my emotions spill over into this essay, but I can’t make any promises.)
The Issue, True and False
I’ve heard a disturbingly-large number of people make the following statement. "Plaxico Burress was dumb!" as a way to, apparently, justify his treatment. One person even remarked that Plax deserved to be in jail for being so stupid. (I reckon that was a joke; nevertheless, further editorial comments strewn with curse words redacted.) Frankly, I have no clue if Plax Burress is intelligent or not. I also don’t know what his favorite flavor of ice cream might be. Both those tidbits have equal relevance to the issue of gun control generally and what happened to him specifically.
More important though is this. Intelligence tests have a long and storied history in the quest of the State to keep the black man firmly in his place. If people really wonder if a victim of draconian statist violence masquerading as law and order is "smart" or not – and think that issue matters one iota – then the descendants of the racist bastards who initially conspired to strip black folk of the ability to defend themselves can proclaim "Mission Accomplished" and put another shrimp on the barbeque.
The fact of the matter is this: Dating back to the Antebellum South and beyond, the State has enacted laws specifically designed to keep black folk unarmed. This is not debatable, nor a matter of perspective. It is a matter of fact. The jailing of Plaxico Burress should not be viewed as an isolated event, simply the fallout of a careless high-profile citizen. It is the fruit of a racist tree planted in 18th century America, a tree that continues to bear fruit even in 2009. Consulting a paper on the racist history of gun control in Georgia produced by GeorgiaCarry.org, one finds this informative quote from Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford commenting on the practice of developing seemingly race-neutral gun control laws that – in reality – selectively applied only to blacks:
I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and sawmill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.
You can’t ask for more honesty than that. But, you may ask, how can I draw a similar conclusion about the laws of the City of New York? Isn’t it clear that people like Mayor Bloomberg are genuinely concerned about the safety of all citizens? No. Hell no. How do I know? Let us examine another large U.S. city, Chicago, IL.
Disarmed Negroes, Not Just Fun During Slavery
In a piece entitled, "Chicago, gun control, and racism" we find this nugget:
Between 2000 and 2006, Chicago, home of the handgun ban, saw an [sic] handguns comprise a 43.2% larger portion of all homicides, increasing from 55.5% to 79.5% of all homicide methods. Firearm usage increased 24.7%, from 65.6% to 81.8% of all homicide methods. …Meanwhile, for the rest of Illinois, firearm usage decreased 16.0%, from 72.3% to 60.7%. (Handgun data not available.)
What does this mean? It means in the City of Chicago, where draconian gun-control quite similar to that of New York City exists, crime has increased. Not only that, but the crime has increased selectively in black neighborhoods. (You’ll have to read the whole article to glean that tidbit.) Wouldn’t that mean that one should do more to disarm criminals? If it were possible to disarm criminals selectively – and only in that event – such an obvious conclusion might make sense. Of course, such selective disarmament is nigh impossible. A better approach – an approach grounded in logic – is reflected by three points I made in an essay from quite a while back. That essay attempted to speak to anarchy, but the points I made relate directly to why widespread ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens must necessarily drive violence down. This issue is important enough that I’ll restate those points in their entirety here:
The fog of war is preserved.
The primary result of any coercively implemented government attempts at disarming evil people is the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. Gun-control advocates, like those mentioned by Richard Poe in "The Disarming of Black America," seem to believe that an authoritarian crackdown on having firearms will reduce violence by making everyone equal, i.e., equally unarmed. The fact of the matter is this can never, ever happen. The example of Kennesaw, GA provides a direct proof of the falsity of this premise. Cesare Beccaria, a legal theorist from the 1700's (who some believe greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson), explains why with this unassailable logic.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
Stated differently, those who respond to laws, such as turning-in unregistered weapons, are, by definition, law-abiding citizens. They are not the ones about whom we have to worry! Those who have no plan to obey the laws are unimpressed by such pleas. Worse yet, they expect that those they hope to prey on will respond to such requests. As a result, they know that their victims are unarmed. Few things can embolden a person who has the tendency to aggress against another like knowing for a fact that he is safe to do so.
The argument from morality is honored.
One of the underlying assumptions in every environment where citizens have been disarmed via state coercion is that certain people, and only these people, are qualified and empowered to partake in certain practices. For example, the police are always armed. No one in his right mind would suggest otherwise. What objective moral criterion makes a policeman different than a regular citizen in this regard? Is it the uniform? Unlikely – uniforms provide no qualification in and of themselves. Is it the training? No – anyone can be trained. Is it via the consent of the governed? No – I am unqualified and unable to bestow a right away that I do not have.
Stated hypothetically, I cannot reasonably suggest that an acquaintance of mine (call him "Bob") can have a gun, while simultaneously requiring that another acquaintance (call him "Rob") cannot be armed. What is different about the police, and who made it so? Bob, Rob, and I are of the same species, sharing the same natural rights and privileges, and endowed with the same frailties. Only mysticism or irrationality can justify my elevation of one or the other to a status that we each cannot obtain on our own. (As an aside, some may recognize this quality of anarchy as a direct – but somewhat simplified – restatement of the concept of universalizability.) Whatever one prefers to call it, the same conclusion can be drawn.
The opportunity cost for violence remains appropriate.
When a criminal knows his victims are unarmed, his opportunity cost for violence is artificially lowered. Furthermore, and maybe more importantly, when those ostensibly authorized to "serve and protect" know that they – and only they – can inflict "lawful" violence upon others, they have a tendency to overreact when faced with a choice to use violence. Each time we hear about a citizen being shot multiple times by groups of police, or policemen actually breaking the law by selling drugs or other contraband, this truism is fully illustrated. Yet, when no one has an advantage – and generally only then – everyone is enticed to act accordingly.
When I was a kid, although there were occasional fights, most of them amounted only to shoving matches. Often, even the most ardent emotional dispute would end up with two kids staring each other down face-to-face and nothing more. Thinking back upon these "interactions," the simple wisdom of one of our sayings about them strikes me. We would often say to anyone watching one of these staring matches, "One of them is scared and the other one is glad of it!" That, sports fans, is the essence of appropriate opportunity cost. Basic logic dictates: if you know you’re going to have to pay for the aggression, you are generally slower to take part in it.
Anyone who thinks the opportunity costs for criminals looking to act out violently in Chicago is not reduced by widespread citizen disarmament is sadly, and cataclysmically, mistaken. (If recent biting essays from Will Grigg on the tendency of law givers to infringe upon their subjects don’t convince you that opportunity costs, not only for criminals, but also ostensive law-enforcers, affect behavior, I don’t know what will.)
A Psychological Perspective and a Historical One
When a buddy of mine read the essay from which the above three points were taken, he remarked to me that the terminology, "fog of war," made him uncomfortable. Thinking of our society as a place where war between citizens is a constant possibility should make one uncomfortable. Here’s the important point, stated as an equation: Being Armed <> Being Violent. Being armed is not equivalent to being violent. In fact, exactly the opposite is true of the vast majority of citizens. However, and this is where it gets dicey, those who wish to infringe don’t really care that much about being peaceful. Quoting myself from yet another essay on the Right to Bear Arms:
Have you ever met a bully? Almost everyone can remember that kid back in high school who took advantage of the nerds and/or the weaker kids. Generally, he was bigger, but not surprisingly – if you understand his pathology – this guy never accosted the kids who could readily defend themselves. Why? Bullies are cowards…Gun-free zones – and any other places where people are known to be less able (or less willing) to defend themselves – tend to attract bullies and/or psychos.
No one should be worried about peaceful citizens becoming psychotic Rambo-clones the instant they obtain a gun – at least no one who rationally thinks about this. Everyone should be concerned about losers who want to infringe upon you knowing they can do so without the threat of specific, immediate, response. (As bad as it might sound, I wonder if Derrion Albert would still be alive today if he had been toting a burner. We’ll never know.) One more example from history seems appropriate. This comes from a Wikipedia article on United States v. Cruikshank. To wit:
On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the blacks were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100–280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 were being held prisoner that night.
In the aftermath of the massacre, two of the shooters were indicted. (Two? Sure, the law can protect a brother!) After a series of appeals and all the normal constitutional grandstanding and precise reading, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions. Furthermore, the Court ruled, essentially, that the laws of the nation did not apply in the case of individuals infringing upon one another. Quoting directly, "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another." I actually agree with that statement. What troubles me, however, is how that ruling was used to allow for paramilitary groups to attack blacks with impunity. Returning to the article, we find:
In the short term, blacks in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, who did little to protect them…The Cruikshank case effectively enabled political parties' use of paramilitary forces.
Conclusion
I don’t want to shoot anyone, and, honestly, I never have. I agree wholeheartedly with whoever first uttered the powerful phrase, "There is no way to peace; peace is the way." I don’t expect that many who are reading this essay feel differently. That said, when and if someone attempted to infringe directly upon me, I suspect I’d feel way better being able to defend myself versus having the legislature (or the cops) on speed dial. Your safety and freedom is your responsibility. It always was. It always will be. This sentiment is expressed more eloquently in a piece entitled, "76 Reasons to Have a Gun" with "a right exercised is a right retained." Those who endeavor to take the ability to defend that safety and freedom away from you do not have your best interests at heart. They never did.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:00 PM
0 Comments
The Empire Is Going Down
from IslamOnline.net
Disgruntled by high taxes, wars in far-away countries, bailouts for fat-cat bankers, a growing number of Americans are pushing their states to defy federal laws and some are advocating secession.
"Our government is operated and owned by Wall Street and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor who heads the Second Vermont Republic movement, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday, October 11.
"The empire is going down -- do you want to go down with the Titanic, or seek other options while they are still on the table?"
The US fell into the grip of the worst economic crisis since 1930s in September after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank, and the financial woes of a number of Wall Street giants.
The fallout has developed into a full-fledged recession, threatening personal finances as home prices fall, retirement funds shrink and access to credit and jobs evaporate.
The recession, government growth and the explosion in federal spending are infuriating many Americans.
"The US government has lost its moral authority," says Naylor.
Twenty-five states have passed laws preventing the 2005 Real ID Act, which sets federal standards for identification cards, from being implemented.
Also, 13 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, in defiance of federal anti-drug regulations.
As tensions grow over health care reform, 15 states are pushing laws that would exempt them from federal health care regulations.
Montana and Tennessee have even passed laws exempting weapons and ammunition produced in their states from federal regulations.
"There is more talk today about nullification (invalidating federal laws) and secession... than any time since 1865," said Kirkpatrick Sale, who heads the South Carolina-based Middlebury Institute, which studies separatism, secession, and self-determination.
Sale says there are active secessionist groups in at least 10 US states, including Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
"Secession is our only answer because our federal government is broken and cannot be repaired in the current political system," agrees Dave Mundy, a spokesman for the Texas Nationalist Movement.
The US is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.
It was founded on July 4, 1776, by thirteen British colonies that defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War.
But Texas was an independent republic from 1836 to 1845, as was Vermont from 1777 to 1791.
Texas last seceded in 1861, when it joined 10 other southern states to form the Confederate States of America.
The Civil War soon broke out, and four years a later, the union was restored.
J.R. Labbe, editorial director at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper, doubts secessionists can gain grounds.
"[They are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," she told AFP.
"Digital cameras that can upload images and soundbites -- and 24/7 news channels that are always looking for the most bizarre clip they can find -- have given them a much broader audience than they, or Texas, deserve."
Lyn Spillman, a specialist on nationalism at Notre Dame University, agrees.
"Considered generally, secession movements -- which are quite common in American history -- are extremely unlikely to have significant political consequences."
But Sale contends that a collapse of the dollar and anger over foreign wars, combined with calamitous climate change triggered by global warming, could push communities towards energy, water and food independence.
"A conjunction of events over the next few years might increase the talk about secession."
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Disgruntled by high taxes, wars in far-away countries, bailouts for fat-cat bankers, a growing number of Americans are pushing their states to defy federal laws and some are advocating secession.
"Our government is operated and owned by Wall Street and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor who heads the Second Vermont Republic movement, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday, October 11.
"The empire is going down -- do you want to go down with the Titanic, or seek other options while they are still on the table?"
The US fell into the grip of the worst economic crisis since 1930s in September after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank, and the financial woes of a number of Wall Street giants.
The fallout has developed into a full-fledged recession, threatening personal finances as home prices fall, retirement funds shrink and access to credit and jobs evaporate.
The recession, government growth and the explosion in federal spending are infuriating many Americans.
"The US government has lost its moral authority," says Naylor.
Twenty-five states have passed laws preventing the 2005 Real ID Act, which sets federal standards for identification cards, from being implemented.
Also, 13 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, in defiance of federal anti-drug regulations.
As tensions grow over health care reform, 15 states are pushing laws that would exempt them from federal health care regulations.
Montana and Tennessee have even passed laws exempting weapons and ammunition produced in their states from federal regulations.
"There is more talk today about nullification (invalidating federal laws) and secession... than any time since 1865," said Kirkpatrick Sale, who heads the South Carolina-based Middlebury Institute, which studies separatism, secession, and self-determination.
Sale says there are active secessionist groups in at least 10 US states, including Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
"Secession is our only answer because our federal government is broken and cannot be repaired in the current political system," agrees Dave Mundy, a spokesman for the Texas Nationalist Movement.
The US is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.
It was founded on July 4, 1776, by thirteen British colonies that defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War.
But Texas was an independent republic from 1836 to 1845, as was Vermont from 1777 to 1791.
Texas last seceded in 1861, when it joined 10 other southern states to form the Confederate States of America.
The Civil War soon broke out, and four years a later, the union was restored.
J.R. Labbe, editorial director at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper, doubts secessionists can gain grounds.
"[They are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," she told AFP.
"Digital cameras that can upload images and soundbites -- and 24/7 news channels that are always looking for the most bizarre clip they can find -- have given them a much broader audience than they, or Texas, deserve."
Lyn Spillman, a specialist on nationalism at Notre Dame University, agrees.
"Considered generally, secession movements -- which are quite common in American history -- are extremely unlikely to have significant political consequences."
But Sale contends that a collapse of the dollar and anger over foreign wars, combined with calamitous climate change triggered by global warming, could push communities towards energy, water and food independence.
"A conjunction of events over the next few years might increase the talk about secession."
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:45 AM
0 Comments
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Does More Federal Spending = Better Education?
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:09 PM
0 Comments
Gov’t foreclosing freedom
by Star Parker
The latest installment of “change we can believe in” is sweeping reform of the financial services industry.
Central to proposed Democrat reforms is the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would have broad authority to oversee and regulate financial service products like mortgages and credit cards and will be responsible to protect consumers from “unfair” and “abusive” products.
Unfortunately, when bureaucrats get authority to determine what is fair, the very people who they supposedly are charged to protect - us - are the ones who get hurt.
The most important product in our country is freedom and, unfortunately, it’s this product that President Barack Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank find most defective. They really think that politicians and bureaucrats can take best care of the people.
Consider one of the most besieged financial services businesses in the country: payday advance loans.
The industry got started in the 1990s and now delivers about $40 billion in short-term, low-denomination loans. You can’t help but conclude this is a service many consumers want.
Yet the industry is under constant attack by groups who appoint themselves to be the champions for consumer protection.
Regarding payday advance loans, their claim is that fees are too high. The business is regulated at the state level. State-by-state initiatives have been advanced to put ceilings on rates loan providers can charge.
Voters in Ohio last year approved capping annual rates on payday loans at 28 percent.
The result? According to one industry spokesman, “700 of the 1,600 payday loan offices in the state have closed.”
No one has been protected. They’ve only limited options available to free men and women.
There are many firms providing payday advance loans - I count 55 on the membership list of their trade association - so clearly competition is fierce to price these loans competitively.
It’s not an accident that the same organizations that attack the payday advance business are lobbying for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Nor is it an accident that one of these organizations has been scandal-drenched ACORN.
Economist Milton Friedman once observed, “Many people want government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The latest installment of “change we can believe in” is sweeping reform of the financial services industry.
Central to proposed Democrat reforms is the establishment of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would have broad authority to oversee and regulate financial service products like mortgages and credit cards and will be responsible to protect consumers from “unfair” and “abusive” products.
Unfortunately, when bureaucrats get authority to determine what is fair, the very people who they supposedly are charged to protect - us - are the ones who get hurt.
The most important product in our country is freedom and, unfortunately, it’s this product that President Barack Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank find most defective. They really think that politicians and bureaucrats can take best care of the people.
Consider one of the most besieged financial services businesses in the country: payday advance loans.
The industry got started in the 1990s and now delivers about $40 billion in short-term, low-denomination loans. You can’t help but conclude this is a service many consumers want.
Yet the industry is under constant attack by groups who appoint themselves to be the champions for consumer protection.
Regarding payday advance loans, their claim is that fees are too high. The business is regulated at the state level. State-by-state initiatives have been advanced to put ceilings on rates loan providers can charge.
Voters in Ohio last year approved capping annual rates on payday loans at 28 percent.
The result? According to one industry spokesman, “700 of the 1,600 payday loan offices in the state have closed.”
No one has been protected. They’ve only limited options available to free men and women.
There are many firms providing payday advance loans - I count 55 on the membership list of their trade association - so clearly competition is fierce to price these loans competitively.
It’s not an accident that the same organizations that attack the payday advance business are lobbying for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Nor is it an accident that one of these organizations has been scandal-drenched ACORN.
Economist Milton Friedman once observed, “Many people want government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.”
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:05 PM
0 Comments
German Soldiers Get Additive Free Swine Flu Shot
by Paul Joseph Watson
According to a report out of Germany, German soldiers have been given an additive-free swine flu shot that doesn’t contain mercury, squalene, or any of the other dangerous adjuvants associated with the vaccine, raising questions as to why this version of the shot has not been made available to the general population.
An article that when translated is entitled, German soldiers gets non poisonous vaccine, explains how 250,000 German troops have been given a “friendly” vaccine made by Baxter that does not contain “controversial mercury-containing additives or preservatives”.
It appears that there are two versions of the swine flu shot, one for those in the know and another for the general population who trust the government to shoot them up with dangerous toxins that have been linked to autism and other neurological disorders.
Despite concerns about thimerosal and mercury, thimerosal is an ingredient of the swine flu vaccine which is currently being rolled out globally.
“Some of the vaccine will be stored in multi-dose vials containing thimerosal, an antibacterial additive that contains mercury,” reported the Washington Post in an article about which groups will receive the swine flu vaccine first.
Indeed, the swine flu vaccine contains no less than 25,000 per cent the amount of mercury considered safe.
Mercury is classified by The Department of Defense as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and the EPA is now limiting mercury emissions from factories because the toxin “can damage the brain and nervous system and is especially dangerous to fetuses and small children,” but according to the CDC it’s perfectly safe to inject into your child’s bloodstream.
As we previously highlighted, many people are choosing to take the nasal spray version of the vaccine in the false assumption that it is safer than the injectable version. In reality, the nasal spray contains live H1N1 virus, which has led many doctors and health professionals to express concerns that it could spread the swine flu virus amongst those with weakened immune systems.
“It has been documented that the live viruses from the vaccine can be shed (and potentially spread into the community) from recipient children for up to 21 days, and even longer from adults. Viral shedding also puts breastfeeding infants at risk if the mother has been given FluMist,” writes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, one of the most outspoken physicians in the country on the hazards of vaccines and vaccination.
FluMist’s own package insert reads as follows, “FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days.”
“The warning is specifically directed toward those living in the same household with an immunocompromised person, but the on-going release of live viruses throughout the community may be a significant risk to everyone who has a weak, or weakened, immune system,” writes Tenpenny, pointing out that if one takes into account a plethora of health conditions that could be classified as contributing to immunodeficiency, as much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed.”
One of the pharmaceutical companies developing nasal spray vaccines is Baxter International, who were caught earlier this year releasing batches of vaccines from a lab in Austria that were contaminated live bird flu virus, otherwise known as H5N1.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
According to a report out of Germany, German soldiers have been given an additive-free swine flu shot that doesn’t contain mercury, squalene, or any of the other dangerous adjuvants associated with the vaccine, raising questions as to why this version of the shot has not been made available to the general population.
An article that when translated is entitled, German soldiers gets non poisonous vaccine, explains how 250,000 German troops have been given a “friendly” vaccine made by Baxter that does not contain “controversial mercury-containing additives or preservatives”.
It appears that there are two versions of the swine flu shot, one for those in the know and another for the general population who trust the government to shoot them up with dangerous toxins that have been linked to autism and other neurological disorders.
Despite concerns about thimerosal and mercury, thimerosal is an ingredient of the swine flu vaccine which is currently being rolled out globally.
“Some of the vaccine will be stored in multi-dose vials containing thimerosal, an antibacterial additive that contains mercury,” reported the Washington Post in an article about which groups will receive the swine flu vaccine first.
Indeed, the swine flu vaccine contains no less than 25,000 per cent the amount of mercury considered safe.
Mercury is classified by The Department of Defense as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and the EPA is now limiting mercury emissions from factories because the toxin “can damage the brain and nervous system and is especially dangerous to fetuses and small children,” but according to the CDC it’s perfectly safe to inject into your child’s bloodstream.
As we previously highlighted, many people are choosing to take the nasal spray version of the vaccine in the false assumption that it is safer than the injectable version. In reality, the nasal spray contains live H1N1 virus, which has led many doctors and health professionals to express concerns that it could spread the swine flu virus amongst those with weakened immune systems.
“It has been documented that the live viruses from the vaccine can be shed (and potentially spread into the community) from recipient children for up to 21 days, and even longer from adults. Viral shedding also puts breastfeeding infants at risk if the mother has been given FluMist,” writes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, one of the most outspoken physicians in the country on the hazards of vaccines and vaccination.
FluMist’s own package insert reads as follows, “FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days.”
“The warning is specifically directed toward those living in the same household with an immunocompromised person, but the on-going release of live viruses throughout the community may be a significant risk to everyone who has a weak, or weakened, immune system,” writes Tenpenny, pointing out that if one takes into account a plethora of health conditions that could be classified as contributing to immunodeficiency, as much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed.”
One of the pharmaceutical companies developing nasal spray vaccines is Baxter International, who were caught earlier this year releasing batches of vaccines from a lab in Austria that were contaminated live bird flu virus, otherwise known as H5N1.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:56 AM
1 Comments
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Rich Uncle Pays Your Mortgage
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The economic meltdown has put the country on the fast track to socialism, but through a series of tiny steps. One need only to examine the supposed victories in the war on depression to see how this is happening. The latest is the claim that the Obama administration has successfully renegotiated many mortgage obligations in a way that allows people to keep their homes.
Before looking at the program, we have to ask, is this really a victory? If people are in over their heads, drowning in debt, it is a far wiser path to lift them out rather than hand them a snorkel through which to breathe. The answer for most of the sad cases of people with homes larger and more expensive than they can afford is to move to a new abode. I don't know why or how such thoughts became unthinkable: we not only have a right to a home now, but we have a right to live forever in a discounted home.
If people would move to cheaper places, their debt problems would be solved in shorter order. If many people bailed out of expensive homes, their prices would go down and approach reasonable levels, and perhaps then the people who are living beneath their means could actually ramp up their standard of living by buying from the glut out there. And isn't this something that has been a national priority for several decades, providing better housing for the poor? Here it is within our grasp: let the prices fall!
In any case, how was the Obama administration able to accomplish the miracle of letting people continue to live in lifestyles they can't afford? They offer to pay $1,000 for every loan that a mortgage company could renegotiate. Why didn't they just agree to pay the mortgages? It's unclear. Seems like that would have been an easier path from A to B. Instead, they wanted the mortgage companies in on the deal.
And where is this money coming from? You can use all the fancy words you want, but in the end government has no money. Everything government has it gets from you. That is the most fundamental lesson of political economy, without which no clear thinking takes place. And yet it seems to be the most covered-up truth of our times. So if you know this one point, you will be leagues ahead of almost everyone else in thinking about these issues: one way or another, you will pay.
How will you pay? It can happen through the old-fashioned method of taxation. Or it can happen through more debt that will have to be paid in the future. Or it can happen when the Fed creates new money that eventually shows up in the form of dollar depreciation, and this is the most insidious method there is. This is, of course, how the current crew believes it can make the magic happen. It's a form of counterfeiting.
It's not compassion to steal from some to give to others. It is using violence to accomplish your ends, which, in this case, only delays necessary pain. No new wealth is created. It is merely shuffled around from spot to spot by force. It is you who are being robbed to pay for the mistakes of these homebuyers. Even Americans who didn't participate in the boom are being punished, made to cover the bad purchases of others.
Thus can we see that there is no amazing thing taking place here; no genius policies nor dazzling acts of the supernatural. This is old-fashioned redistribution, to sustain the unsustainable.
It's odd to watch the ethos of public affairs these days. Everyone seems to agree that mistakes were made in the past. People lived beyond their means. The boom created nutty financial arrangements in which people with no money and no jobs and no prospect of paying were able to enter into massive credit obligations lasting decades. Everyone seems to understand that there is something wrong here.
Where the split occurs is what to do about it. The party in power is under the belief that the way to fix a problem is to continue the practices that caused the problem in the first place, and delay for as long as possible the correction that must take place. On the other side are people who believe that reality needs to reassert itself, and the sooner the better.
Take note that I'm not talking about the need for blood in the streets or for lives to be shattered. I'm talking about moving to a different neighborhood, possibly renting rather than "owning," and generally downscaling. Is that really too much to ask? Not really, so the question appears: why is the government not insisting on this? I think the answer comes down to the banks and institutions that continue to hold bad assets. They don't want them repriced because that would be liquidation, and they are powerful enough to concoct policies that prevent that, for now.
So what appears to be this glorious favor to the American middle class is in actual fact another form of bailout for the banking system, however temporary it might be. But mark my words: home prices will fall, and these mortgages will eventually be re-priced. There is not enough financial trickery available to postpone this. And when stage two of the great meltdown happens, we will once again be suffering regret. Then there will be yet another chance to do the right thing.
Let the market speak. It is the only institution that seems willing to tell us the truth anymore.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The economic meltdown has put the country on the fast track to socialism, but through a series of tiny steps. One need only to examine the supposed victories in the war on depression to see how this is happening. The latest is the claim that the Obama administration has successfully renegotiated many mortgage obligations in a way that allows people to keep their homes.
Before looking at the program, we have to ask, is this really a victory? If people are in over their heads, drowning in debt, it is a far wiser path to lift them out rather than hand them a snorkel through which to breathe. The answer for most of the sad cases of people with homes larger and more expensive than they can afford is to move to a new abode. I don't know why or how such thoughts became unthinkable: we not only have a right to a home now, but we have a right to live forever in a discounted home.
If people would move to cheaper places, their debt problems would be solved in shorter order. If many people bailed out of expensive homes, their prices would go down and approach reasonable levels, and perhaps then the people who are living beneath their means could actually ramp up their standard of living by buying from the glut out there. And isn't this something that has been a national priority for several decades, providing better housing for the poor? Here it is within our grasp: let the prices fall!
In any case, how was the Obama administration able to accomplish the miracle of letting people continue to live in lifestyles they can't afford? They offer to pay $1,000 for every loan that a mortgage company could renegotiate. Why didn't they just agree to pay the mortgages? It's unclear. Seems like that would have been an easier path from A to B. Instead, they wanted the mortgage companies in on the deal.
And where is this money coming from? You can use all the fancy words you want, but in the end government has no money. Everything government has it gets from you. That is the most fundamental lesson of political economy, without which no clear thinking takes place. And yet it seems to be the most covered-up truth of our times. So if you know this one point, you will be leagues ahead of almost everyone else in thinking about these issues: one way or another, you will pay.
How will you pay? It can happen through the old-fashioned method of taxation. Or it can happen through more debt that will have to be paid in the future. Or it can happen when the Fed creates new money that eventually shows up in the form of dollar depreciation, and this is the most insidious method there is. This is, of course, how the current crew believes it can make the magic happen. It's a form of counterfeiting.
It's not compassion to steal from some to give to others. It is using violence to accomplish your ends, which, in this case, only delays necessary pain. No new wealth is created. It is merely shuffled around from spot to spot by force. It is you who are being robbed to pay for the mistakes of these homebuyers. Even Americans who didn't participate in the boom are being punished, made to cover the bad purchases of others.
Thus can we see that there is no amazing thing taking place here; no genius policies nor dazzling acts of the supernatural. This is old-fashioned redistribution, to sustain the unsustainable.
It's odd to watch the ethos of public affairs these days. Everyone seems to agree that mistakes were made in the past. People lived beyond their means. The boom created nutty financial arrangements in which people with no money and no jobs and no prospect of paying were able to enter into massive credit obligations lasting decades. Everyone seems to understand that there is something wrong here.
Where the split occurs is what to do about it. The party in power is under the belief that the way to fix a problem is to continue the practices that caused the problem in the first place, and delay for as long as possible the correction that must take place. On the other side are people who believe that reality needs to reassert itself, and the sooner the better.
Take note that I'm not talking about the need for blood in the streets or for lives to be shattered. I'm talking about moving to a different neighborhood, possibly renting rather than "owning," and generally downscaling. Is that really too much to ask? Not really, so the question appears: why is the government not insisting on this? I think the answer comes down to the banks and institutions that continue to hold bad assets. They don't want them repriced because that would be liquidation, and they are powerful enough to concoct policies that prevent that, for now.
So what appears to be this glorious favor to the American middle class is in actual fact another form of bailout for the banking system, however temporary it might be. But mark my words: home prices will fall, and these mortgages will eventually be re-priced. There is not enough financial trickery available to postpone this. And when stage two of the great meltdown happens, we will once again be suffering regret. Then there will be yet another chance to do the right thing.
Let the market speak. It is the only institution that seems willing to tell us the truth anymore.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:00 PM
0 Comments
Economic Recovery
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:07 PM
0 Comments
Scenes From a Crackdown
Police overkill at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh
by Randy Balko, Reason.com
Having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for the better part of the last 10 years, I've attended my share of protests, though, again as a resident of the Beltway, I've spent far more time trying to avoid them and the traffic nightmares they spawn. Among the various classes of protesters—pro-lifers, environmentalists, anti-war activists, and now Tea Partiers—the most destructive are easily the anti-globalization/anarchist protesters. So when police clashed with anti-globalization protesters last weekend in Pittsburgh, one could assume that most altercations represented justified police responses to overzealous protesters.
But a number of disturbing images, videos, and witness accounts have come out of Pittsburgh, as well as from similar high-stakes political events in recent years, that reveal the disquieting ease with which authorities are willing to crush dissent—and at the very sorts of events where the right to dissent is the entire purpose of protecting free speech. That is, events where influential policymakers meet to make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences.
On the Friday afternoon before the G20 kicked into high gear, a student at the University of Pittsburgh sent me this photo, which he says he snapped on his way back from class.
It depicts a University of Pittsburgh police officer directing traffic at a roadblock. What's troubling is what he's wearing: camouflage military fatigues. It's difficult to understand why a police officer working for an urban police department would need to wear camouflage, especially while patrolling an economic summit. He's a civilian police officer, dressed like a soldier. The symbolism is clear, and it affects the attitudes of the both the cops wearing the clothes and the people they're policing.
He wasn't alone. A number of police departments from across the country came to Pittsburgh to help police the summit, and nearly all were dressed in paramilitary garb. In one widely-circulated video from the summit, several police officers dressed entirely in camouflage emerge from an unmarked car, apprehend a young backpack-toting protester, stuff him into the car, and then drive off. It evoked the sort of "disappearance" one might envision in a Latin American junta or Soviet Block country. Matt Drudge linked to the video, describing the officers in it as members of the military. They weren't, though it's certainly easy to understand how someone might make that mistake.
Another video shows a police unit with what seems to be a handcuffed protester. Officers surround the protester and prop him up, at which point another officer snaps what appears to be a trophy photo. (YouTube has since removed the video, citing a terms of use violation.) Other Twitter feeds and uploaded photos and videos claim police fired tear gas canisters into dorm rooms, used sound cannons, and fired bean bags and rubber bullets. One man was arrested for posting the locations of riot police on Twitter.
Emily Tanner, a grad student at the University of Pittsburgh who describes herself as a "capitalist" and who doesn't agree with the general philosophy of the anti-globalization protesters, has been covering the fallout on her blog. The most egregious police actions seemed to take place on Friday September 25, when police began ordering students who were in public spaces to disperse, despite the fact that they had broken no laws. Those who moved too slowly, even from public spaces on their own campus or in front of their dorms, were arrested.
Lucy Steigerwald, a libertarian student at Chatham University (and daughter of Reason contributor Bill Steigerwald), describes the scene via email: "I'm truly disappointed in my city's reaction to Friday night....hundreds of riot cops attack[ed] Pittsburgh's biggest, most jockish, mainstream college. And people still have no sympathy for peaceful protesters or curious college students on their campus. They just feel comfortable and confident that people who have the right to use force on other people are always in the right when they do so. It's pretty scary and disappointing that they're so trusting with people's right to assembly being at the whim of the government.
A University of Pittsburgh spokesman said the tactic was to break up crowds that "had the potential of disrupting normal activities, traffic flow, egress and the like...Much of the arrests last night had to do with failure to disperse when ordered." Note that a group of people needn't have actually broken any laws, only possessed the "potential" to do so, at which point not moving quickly enough for the liking of the police on the scene could result in an arrest. That standard is essentially a license for the police to arrest anyone, anywhere in the city at any time, regardless of whether those under arrest have actually done anything wrong.
Pennsylvania ACLU Legal Director Vic Walczak said the problem is that police didn't attempt to manage the protests, they simply suppressed them. In the process, they rounded up not only innocent protesters, but innocent students who had nothing to do with the protests. "The reason it's bizarre is it seemed to focus almost exclusively on peaceful demonstrators," Walczak said on September 26. "Police can't indiscriminately arrest people. On [Friday] night they didn't even have the excuse of property damage going on or any illegal activity. It's really inexplicable."
It certainly can't be easy to both keep order and protect civil liberties at these sorts of events. But that doesn't mean police and city officials shouldn't be expected to try. A few unruly protesters (and there was very little property damage at the G20 summit) doesn't give the police license to crack down on every young person in the general vicinity, nor should it give the city free rein to suppress all dissent.
The leaders of the world's 20 largest economies and the press covering them came to Pittsburgh last weekend. It's unfortunate that the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights, but one that at big events gives its police the sort of power to impose order normally seen in authoritarian states. In all, 190 people were arrested, including at least two journalists. One, a reporter from the left-leaning IndyMedia, says her camera was returned broken, with her footage of the protests and police reaction deleted.
Unfortunately, the projection of overwhelming force at such events is becoming more common. At last year's Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, police conducted peremptory raids on the homes of protesters before the convention. Journalists who inquired about the legitimacy of the raids and arrests made during the convention were also arrested. In all, 672 people were arrested, including at least 39 journalists. The arrest of Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was captured on a widely-viewed video. She was charged with "conspiracy to riot." Those charges were dropped. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported in February that 442 of the 672 who were arrested had their charges either dropped or dismissed.
These are precisely the kinds of events where free speech and the freedom to protest is in most need of protection. Instead, the more high-profile the event, the more influential the players, and the more high-stakes the decision being made, the more determined police and political officials seem to be in making sure dissent is kept as far away from the decision makers as possible. Or silenced entirely.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
by Randy Balko, Reason.com
Having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for the better part of the last 10 years, I've attended my share of protests, though, again as a resident of the Beltway, I've spent far more time trying to avoid them and the traffic nightmares they spawn. Among the various classes of protesters—pro-lifers, environmentalists, anti-war activists, and now Tea Partiers—the most destructive are easily the anti-globalization/anarchist protesters. So when police clashed with anti-globalization protesters last weekend in Pittsburgh, one could assume that most altercations represented justified police responses to overzealous protesters.
But a number of disturbing images, videos, and witness accounts have come out of Pittsburgh, as well as from similar high-stakes political events in recent years, that reveal the disquieting ease with which authorities are willing to crush dissent—and at the very sorts of events where the right to dissent is the entire purpose of protecting free speech. That is, events where influential policymakers meet to make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences.
On the Friday afternoon before the G20 kicked into high gear, a student at the University of Pittsburgh sent me this photo, which he says he snapped on his way back from class.
It depicts a University of Pittsburgh police officer directing traffic at a roadblock. What's troubling is what he's wearing: camouflage military fatigues. It's difficult to understand why a police officer working for an urban police department would need to wear camouflage, especially while patrolling an economic summit. He's a civilian police officer, dressed like a soldier. The symbolism is clear, and it affects the attitudes of the both the cops wearing the clothes and the people they're policing.
He wasn't alone. A number of police departments from across the country came to Pittsburgh to help police the summit, and nearly all were dressed in paramilitary garb. In one widely-circulated video from the summit, several police officers dressed entirely in camouflage emerge from an unmarked car, apprehend a young backpack-toting protester, stuff him into the car, and then drive off. It evoked the sort of "disappearance" one might envision in a Latin American junta or Soviet Block country. Matt Drudge linked to the video, describing the officers in it as members of the military. They weren't, though it's certainly easy to understand how someone might make that mistake.
Another video shows a police unit with what seems to be a handcuffed protester. Officers surround the protester and prop him up, at which point another officer snaps what appears to be a trophy photo. (YouTube has since removed the video, citing a terms of use violation.) Other Twitter feeds and uploaded photos and videos claim police fired tear gas canisters into dorm rooms, used sound cannons, and fired bean bags and rubber bullets. One man was arrested for posting the locations of riot police on Twitter.
Emily Tanner, a grad student at the University of Pittsburgh who describes herself as a "capitalist" and who doesn't agree with the general philosophy of the anti-globalization protesters, has been covering the fallout on her blog. The most egregious police actions seemed to take place on Friday September 25, when police began ordering students who were in public spaces to disperse, despite the fact that they had broken no laws. Those who moved too slowly, even from public spaces on their own campus or in front of their dorms, were arrested.
Lucy Steigerwald, a libertarian student at Chatham University (and daughter of Reason contributor Bill Steigerwald), describes the scene via email: "I'm truly disappointed in my city's reaction to Friday night....hundreds of riot cops attack[ed] Pittsburgh's biggest, most jockish, mainstream college. And people still have no sympathy for peaceful protesters or curious college students on their campus. They just feel comfortable and confident that people who have the right to use force on other people are always in the right when they do so. It's pretty scary and disappointing that they're so trusting with people's right to assembly being at the whim of the government.
A University of Pittsburgh spokesman said the tactic was to break up crowds that "had the potential of disrupting normal activities, traffic flow, egress and the like...Much of the arrests last night had to do with failure to disperse when ordered." Note that a group of people needn't have actually broken any laws, only possessed the "potential" to do so, at which point not moving quickly enough for the liking of the police on the scene could result in an arrest. That standard is essentially a license for the police to arrest anyone, anywhere in the city at any time, regardless of whether those under arrest have actually done anything wrong.
Pennsylvania ACLU Legal Director Vic Walczak said the problem is that police didn't attempt to manage the protests, they simply suppressed them. In the process, they rounded up not only innocent protesters, but innocent students who had nothing to do with the protests. "The reason it's bizarre is it seemed to focus almost exclusively on peaceful demonstrators," Walczak said on September 26. "Police can't indiscriminately arrest people. On [Friday] night they didn't even have the excuse of property damage going on or any illegal activity. It's really inexplicable."
It certainly can't be easy to both keep order and protect civil liberties at these sorts of events. But that doesn't mean police and city officials shouldn't be expected to try. A few unruly protesters (and there was very little property damage at the G20 summit) doesn't give the police license to crack down on every young person in the general vicinity, nor should it give the city free rein to suppress all dissent.
The leaders of the world's 20 largest economies and the press covering them came to Pittsburgh last weekend. It's unfortunate that the images that emerged were not of a society that values free expression and constitutional rights, but one that at big events gives its police the sort of power to impose order normally seen in authoritarian states. In all, 190 people were arrested, including at least two journalists. One, a reporter from the left-leaning IndyMedia, says her camera was returned broken, with her footage of the protests and police reaction deleted.
Unfortunately, the projection of overwhelming force at such events is becoming more common. At last year's Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, police conducted peremptory raids on the homes of protesters before the convention. Journalists who inquired about the legitimacy of the raids and arrests made during the convention were also arrested. In all, 672 people were arrested, including at least 39 journalists. The arrest of Amy Goodman of Democracy Now was captured on a widely-viewed video. She was charged with "conspiracy to riot." Those charges were dropped. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported in February that 442 of the 672 who were arrested had their charges either dropped or dismissed.
These are precisely the kinds of events where free speech and the freedom to protest is in most need of protection. Instead, the more high-profile the event, the more influential the players, and the more high-stakes the decision being made, the more determined police and political officials seem to be in making sure dissent is kept as far away from the decision makers as possible. Or silenced entirely.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 7:53 AM
2 Comments
Monday, October 12, 2009
Quicksand
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:16 PM
0 Comments
War Criminal Obama Deserves An Oscar, But Not A Nobel Peace Prize
by Paul Joseph Watson
In a world where war criminals like Tony Blair are rewarded and those that oppose war criminals, like the Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi, are imprisoned and tortured, it comes as no surprise that another war criminal – Barack H. Obama – has been rewarded for his stoic service to imperial bloodletting with the Nobel Peace Prize.
The man who gallantly promised “change” from the Bush regime’s illegal wars and a return to diplomacy over belligerency in dealing with Iran, has perpetuated the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding another in Pakistan and becoming belligerent towards Iran.
How in anyone’s mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?
Obama has done nothing to dismantle the sprawling network of well over 700 U.S. military bases all over the world.
Instead of coming to an understanding with Iran over their nuclear power program, Obama gleefully read from his trusty teleprompter and crafted the hoax that the Iranian nuclear facility at Qom was an evil secret that the Iranians had kept hidden from America as part of a clandestine agenda to build nuclear weapons. In reality, Iran had followed precisely the guidelines set out by the IAEA on when to report the facility and the U.S. had known about it for several years anyway.
Obama’s slick propaganda in expressing his shock at the “discovery” of the plant was worthy of an Oscar but not a Nobel Peace Prize, since the scam has increased the likelihood of sanctions on Iran that will only accelerate the path to war.
By dutifully playing his part in this contrived hoax, Obama was mimicking the tactics of how George W. Bush sold the attack on Iraq.
As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, “By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion.”
The fact that Obama launched himself into the role of war hawk in an effort to propagandize for belligerency towards Iran completely discredits the claim by Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland that Obama “Has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
Obama’s acting skills in front of a teleprompter and his slick rhetoric about peace and diplomacy may look good on the surface, but the reality of what he has actually done to further the PNAC agenda for endless war underlines why the award of the Peace Prize is a sick joke.
If Obama intended to bring peace to the world, then why were his early appointments mostly neo-liberal war hawks who have a history of backing military adventurism?
If Obama is such a huge peacenik, then why has he sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan already, with tens of thousands more at least on the way?
If Obama plans to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and bring peace to the region, then why has he gone back on his promise and ensured that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country?
If Obama is so deserving of being recognized for his efforts towards peace, then why has he intensified the Bush-era missile drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have killed and injured countless innocent civilians?
If Obama is so interested in promoting peace, then why does he protect war criminals who have violated the Geneva Conventions from prosecution?
Beyond the meaningless platitudes served up by his fellow elitist snobs, the true hilarity of Obama receiving the prize was illustrated by just a couple of individuals who the corporate media dared to quote.
Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, told Reuters: “He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved…The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet.”
“Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing “joke.”
“By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique,” writes author Chris Floyd, and in doing so send, “an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions.”
Floyd encapsulates perfectly why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award is a disgusting farce, an insult to those who really are fighting for peace in the world, and just another reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize represents little more than a gaggle of back-slapping elitists who bestow awards upon each other so that they can pose as global saviors to the public when in reality they are mostly a bunch of crooks, con-artists and deceivers.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
In a world where war criminals like Tony Blair are rewarded and those that oppose war criminals, like the Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi, are imprisoned and tortured, it comes as no surprise that another war criminal – Barack H. Obama – has been rewarded for his stoic service to imperial bloodletting with the Nobel Peace Prize.
The man who gallantly promised “change” from the Bush regime’s illegal wars and a return to diplomacy over belligerency in dealing with Iran, has perpetuated the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding another in Pakistan and becoming belligerent towards Iran.
How in anyone’s mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?
Obama has done nothing to dismantle the sprawling network of well over 700 U.S. military bases all over the world.
Instead of coming to an understanding with Iran over their nuclear power program, Obama gleefully read from his trusty teleprompter and crafted the hoax that the Iranian nuclear facility at Qom was an evil secret that the Iranians had kept hidden from America as part of a clandestine agenda to build nuclear weapons. In reality, Iran had followed precisely the guidelines set out by the IAEA on when to report the facility and the U.S. had known about it for several years anyway.
Obama’s slick propaganda in expressing his shock at the “discovery” of the plant was worthy of an Oscar but not a Nobel Peace Prize, since the scam has increased the likelihood of sanctions on Iran that will only accelerate the path to war.
By dutifully playing his part in this contrived hoax, Obama was mimicking the tactics of how George W. Bush sold the attack on Iraq.
As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, “By accusing Iran of having a secret “nuclear weapons program” and demanding that Iran “come clean” about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” to set up Iraq for invasion.”
The fact that Obama launched himself into the role of war hawk in an effort to propagandize for belligerency towards Iran completely discredits the claim by Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland that Obama “Has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
Obama’s acting skills in front of a teleprompter and his slick rhetoric about peace and diplomacy may look good on the surface, but the reality of what he has actually done to further the PNAC agenda for endless war underlines why the award of the Peace Prize is a sick joke.
If Obama intended to bring peace to the world, then why were his early appointments mostly neo-liberal war hawks who have a history of backing military adventurism?
If Obama is such a huge peacenik, then why has he sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan already, with tens of thousands more at least on the way?
If Obama plans to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and bring peace to the region, then why has he gone back on his promise and ensured that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country?
If Obama is so deserving of being recognized for his efforts towards peace, then why has he intensified the Bush-era missile drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have killed and injured countless innocent civilians?
If Obama is so interested in promoting peace, then why does he protect war criminals who have violated the Geneva Conventions from prosecution?
Beyond the meaningless platitudes served up by his fellow elitist snobs, the true hilarity of Obama receiving the prize was illustrated by just a couple of individuals who the corporate media dared to quote.
Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, told Reuters: “He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved…The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet.”
“Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing “joke.”
“By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique,” writes author Chris Floyd, and in doing so send, “an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions.”
Floyd encapsulates perfectly why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award is a disgusting farce, an insult to those who really are fighting for peace in the world, and just another reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize represents little more than a gaggle of back-slapping elitists who bestow awards upon each other so that they can pose as global saviors to the public when in reality they are mostly a bunch of crooks, con-artists and deceivers.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:11 PM
0 Comments
Transparency In The Health Insurance Debate
The Sam Adams Alliance
Recently, the focus of discussion on the health insurance debate has come to include matters of transparency: are officials sharing their information with us?
Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning has introduced a resolution that would require that all legislation in the Senate to be publicly available 72 hours before the legislation is up for consideration. A few senators have jumped on to support the effort.
Discussing transparency is one thing, but delivering on these promises is quite another. Obama and the senators pushing for transparency should not be allowed to bask in the glory that comes with supporting a good issue, while avoiding the consequences of not providing reform. There are a few things working against this effort. To begin with, transparency isn’t the most scandalous of headlines, so it’s a surprise that it’s a matter of discussion in the first place.
Another potential obstacle comes from critics of Bunning’s resolution who say too much information would confuse the average citizen.
Unfortunately, some are just focused on blaming the president for not delivering on transparency promises. This is a valid criticism. Still, the importance of transparency has less to do with taking down a particular politician, and more to do with empowering taxpayers. Transparency is important, regardless of who is in power or what the ends of transparency will be, because citizens are powerless without information on what the goings-on are in governments. The last check-and-balance on the government is watchful citizens demanding accountability.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Recently, the focus of discussion on the health insurance debate has come to include matters of transparency: are officials sharing their information with us?
Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning has introduced a resolution that would require that all legislation in the Senate to be publicly available 72 hours before the legislation is up for consideration. A few senators have jumped on to support the effort.
Discussing transparency is one thing, but delivering on these promises is quite another. Obama and the senators pushing for transparency should not be allowed to bask in the glory that comes with supporting a good issue, while avoiding the consequences of not providing reform. There are a few things working against this effort. To begin with, transparency isn’t the most scandalous of headlines, so it’s a surprise that it’s a matter of discussion in the first place.
Another potential obstacle comes from critics of Bunning’s resolution who say too much information would confuse the average citizen.
Unfortunately, some are just focused on blaming the president for not delivering on transparency promises. This is a valid criticism. Still, the importance of transparency has less to do with taking down a particular politician, and more to do with empowering taxpayers. Transparency is important, regardless of who is in power or what the ends of transparency will be, because citizens are powerless without information on what the goings-on are in governments. The last check-and-balance on the government is watchful citizens demanding accountability.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:45 AM
0 Comments
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Glenn Beck’s Slick Propaganda Segment on the H1N1 Vaccination
by Kurt Nimmo
On his show today [Oct. 8], Glenn Beck covered the H1N1 virus and vaccine. He said he would not take a stand on if you should submit to the vaccination.
Beck asked his guests about the attenuated virus in the nasal spray version of the vaccine. Marc Siegel, M.D., who has written a book on the swine flu — and Fox naturally peddled, thus giving the audience the idea he is an expert — said the live virus in the vaccine is not capable of spreading the disease in healthy people. “No claws on it,” Siegel insisted, “it has been totally deactivated. It is alive and it can get you sick if you are immunally compromised or if you have asthma or you are pregnant. You can only take it if you are totally healthy. It cannot morph into the flu itself.”
It is estimated 60 percent of the U.S. population is immunodeficient in one way or another, but doctor Siegel did not mention this. He also did not mention concerns on the part of other doctors and health care professionals about the attenuated virus.
Siegel also did not say how health care providers will prevent the immunodeficient from getting the virus. Due to government and corporate media hype about H1N1, it is likely millions of less than healthy people will be demanding they be vaccinated.
As a responsible doctor instead of a Fox News talking head, Mr. Siegel would have mentioned the FluMist insert. It states that FluMist “recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days,” in particular immunocompromised people living in the same house.
In other words, it is inevitable millions of immunocompromised people will get sick.
Millions of Americans suffer from eczema, allergies, cancer, HIV infection or AIDS, emphysema, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, herniated spinal discs, acute muscular pain syndromes, and all types of rheumatoid and autoimmune diseases. As much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed,” according to experts.
The FluMist campaign now underway will be the “most intense, direct-to-consumer marketing campaign ever waged for a vaccine,” costing an estimated $25 million over the next 2.5 months. Big Pharma plans a three-year, $100 million campaign to encourage use of the nasal flu vaccine among physicians, notes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
“Apparently, the goal seems to center around frightening — or inducing enough guilt — that everyone would begin to demand the vaccine as soon as it is available,” including the immunodeficient.
But is not merely the risks to the immunosuppressed. As Dr. Tenpenny notes, an ever greater concern about FluMist is the contents within the vaccine. In addition to the live, attenuated influenza virus — the average dose contains between 10 million and 100 million viral particles — the culture media the viral strain was developed in may not be free of pathogens not tested for. In addition, the risk that the vaccine may contain contaminant avian retroviruses is present. Add to this concern the fact a stabilizing buffer containing potassium phosphate, sucrose (table sugar) and nearly 0.5 mg of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is added to each dose, according to the FluMist package insert.
“The pharmaceutical companies do not necessarily always do a reasonable job of considering the ‘down side’ when they are pushing new drugs or new vaccines,” writes Tenpenny. “FluMist has the potential for causing the worst, most severe flu epidemic seen in years. Parents tell their young children not to put things up their noses because they might cause them harm. It would be wise to consider that advice for adults. With all the risks involved, one should be extremely cautious about what one allows to be sprayed in one’s nose.”
Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a “recipe for pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually causes a disease this year…. Of course, if you are immune compromised or go near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they can get the flu.”
“Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it an extremely hazardous drug,” writes Stephen Lendman. “The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a viral-induced acute brain inflammation.”
None of this was brought up on the Fox News segment — and for good reason. The government wants a preponderant number of people to get vaccinated against a non-existent pandemic by a virus that has so far killed less people than the regular flu season.
Fox News, just like CNN, MSNBC and the rest, function as CIA disinformation, propaganda, and brainwashing organs for a global elite who are eugenicists and believe the planet is populated with too many useless eaters.
“As the federal government launches the most ambitious inoculation campaign in U.S. history, several surveys indicate the public is decidedly ambivalent,” the Washington Post reported last week. “A nationally representative poll of 1,042 adults released Friday by the Harvard School of Public Health found that only 40 percent were sure they would receive the vaccine and that about half were certain their children would. Recent research by the University of Michigan and by Consumer Reports yielded similar results.”
Americans are not stupid. They know there is something rotten in Denmark — or the District of Criminals — when the government gives billions of their tax dollars to giant pharmaceutical companies and fills the public airwaves with PSAs featuring Elmo urging them to have their children injected with an experimental vaccination.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
On his show today [Oct. 8], Glenn Beck covered the H1N1 virus and vaccine. He said he would not take a stand on if you should submit to the vaccination.
Beck asked his guests about the attenuated virus in the nasal spray version of the vaccine. Marc Siegel, M.D., who has written a book on the swine flu — and Fox naturally peddled, thus giving the audience the idea he is an expert — said the live virus in the vaccine is not capable of spreading the disease in healthy people. “No claws on it,” Siegel insisted, “it has been totally deactivated. It is alive and it can get you sick if you are immunally compromised or if you have asthma or you are pregnant. You can only take it if you are totally healthy. It cannot morph into the flu itself.”
It is estimated 60 percent of the U.S. population is immunodeficient in one way or another, but doctor Siegel did not mention this. He also did not mention concerns on the part of other doctors and health care professionals about the attenuated virus.
Siegel also did not say how health care providers will prevent the immunodeficient from getting the virus. Due to government and corporate media hype about H1N1, it is likely millions of less than healthy people will be demanding they be vaccinated.
As a responsible doctor instead of a Fox News talking head, Mr. Siegel would have mentioned the FluMist insert. It states that FluMist “recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days,” in particular immunocompromised people living in the same house.
In other words, it is inevitable millions of immunocompromised people will get sick.
Millions of Americans suffer from eczema, allergies, cancer, HIV infection or AIDS, emphysema, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, herniated spinal discs, acute muscular pain syndromes, and all types of rheumatoid and autoimmune diseases. As much as 60% of the entire population could be considered to be “chemically immunosuppressed,” according to experts.
The FluMist campaign now underway will be the “most intense, direct-to-consumer marketing campaign ever waged for a vaccine,” costing an estimated $25 million over the next 2.5 months. Big Pharma plans a three-year, $100 million campaign to encourage use of the nasal flu vaccine among physicians, notes Dr. Sherri Tenpenny.
“Apparently, the goal seems to center around frightening — or inducing enough guilt — that everyone would begin to demand the vaccine as soon as it is available,” including the immunodeficient.
But is not merely the risks to the immunosuppressed. As Dr. Tenpenny notes, an ever greater concern about FluMist is the contents within the vaccine. In addition to the live, attenuated influenza virus — the average dose contains between 10 million and 100 million viral particles — the culture media the viral strain was developed in may not be free of pathogens not tested for. In addition, the risk that the vaccine may contain contaminant avian retroviruses is present. Add to this concern the fact a stabilizing buffer containing potassium phosphate, sucrose (table sugar) and nearly 0.5 mg of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is added to each dose, according to the FluMist package insert.
“The pharmaceutical companies do not necessarily always do a reasonable job of considering the ‘down side’ when they are pushing new drugs or new vaccines,” writes Tenpenny. “FluMist has the potential for causing the worst, most severe flu epidemic seen in years. Parents tell their young children not to put things up their noses because they might cause them harm. It would be wise to consider that advice for adults. With all the risks involved, one should be extremely cautious about what one allows to be sprayed in one’s nose.”
Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a “recipe for pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually causes a disease this year…. Of course, if you are immune compromised or go near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they can get the flu.”
“Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it an extremely hazardous drug,” writes Stephen Lendman. “The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a viral-induced acute brain inflammation.”
None of this was brought up on the Fox News segment — and for good reason. The government wants a preponderant number of people to get vaccinated against a non-existent pandemic by a virus that has so far killed less people than the regular flu season.
Fox News, just like CNN, MSNBC and the rest, function as CIA disinformation, propaganda, and brainwashing organs for a global elite who are eugenicists and believe the planet is populated with too many useless eaters.
“As the federal government launches the most ambitious inoculation campaign in U.S. history, several surveys indicate the public is decidedly ambivalent,” the Washington Post reported last week. “A nationally representative poll of 1,042 adults released Friday by the Harvard School of Public Health found that only 40 percent were sure they would receive the vaccine and that about half were certain their children would. Recent research by the University of Michigan and by Consumer Reports yielded similar results.”
Americans are not stupid. They know there is something rotten in Denmark — or the District of Criminals — when the government gives billions of their tax dollars to giant pharmaceutical companies and fills the public airwaves with PSAs featuring Elmo urging them to have their children injected with an experimental vaccination.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 4:01 PM
0 Comments
The Tyrannical History of Military Tribunals for Civilians
by Greg Robinson
Mr. Robinson, a native of New York City, is associate professor of history at l'Université du Québec à Montréal and author of By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans. His latest book is: A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America (Columbia University Press, July 2009).
Barack Obama was swept into office on a promise to close down the prison that the Bush administration created at Guantanamo in order to evade the constitutional protections offered prisoners in the United States. The new president nevertheless has approved the continuing use of military tribunals to try at least certain detainees. Faced with the difficult problem of defending the nation against terrorist attack, Obama and his advisers presumably hope that they can modify the structure of these courts so as to protect the innocent without making it impossible to hold the guilty. However, the clearest historical precedent is not reassuring in this regard. Rather, the military tribunals that operated in Hawaii during World War II created a shameful record of arbitrary justice, one which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently rejected.
Army courts were part of the military government that took power in the then Territory of Hawaii following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Commanding General Walter Short (who browbeat the civilian governor into approving unlimited martial law) declared himself military governor, dissolved the elected legislature and suspended the U.S. Constitution. The military regime proceeded over the following weeks to issue decrees regulating all aspects of civilian life. Meanwhile, the army closed down all civilian courts. When the courts reopened one week after Pearl Harbor, they were restricted to considering civil cases, a network of military commissions and provost courts was established to try all criminal cases.
These military tribunals, presided over by armed officers without legal training, were classic examples of drumhead justice, unfettered by rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, or other constitutional safeguards. Juries were forbidden and lawyers discouraged or even barred. The courts were effectively rigged against defendants. Of the 22,480 trials conducted in provost court in Honolulu in 1942-1943, 99 percent ended in convictions—one officer who heard 819 cases issued convictions in all 819! Judges frequently issued severe sentences, including imprisonment and hard labor, for trivial offenses, and no machinery existed for appeals.
In March 1943, nine months after the American victory at Midway ended any real threat of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii, the Army restored certain governmental functions to civilian control. Yet habeas corpus remained suspended and military tribunals continued to judge criminal cases. When in July 1943 federal judge Delbert Metzger ordered General Robert Richardson, the new military governor, to produce two prisoners who had filed habeas corpus petitions, Richardson refused and issued orders threatening Judge Metzger with imprisonment at hard labor unless he abandoned all such proceedings. Ultimately the parties agreed to moot the case.
In February 1944, though, Lloyd Duncan, a civilian laborer, was arrested for assault on two Marine sentries. Summarily found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment by a military tribunal, Duncan challenged his conviction. Defying army authorities, Judge Metzger granted him a writ of habeas corpus and scheduled the case for trial. During the ensuing hearing, Richardson and Admiral Chester Nimitz insisted that military tribunals were essential because of the continuing danger of invasion from Japan. However, Duncan’s lawyers introduced evidence that Japan’s fleet had been destroyed, and under cross-examination Richardson and Nimitz admitted that any invasion was very improbable. Richardson and Justice Department lawyers arguing the case then changed strategy. Turning to racism to buttress their case for military tribunals, they alleged that Hawaii’s racial diversity, notably the presence of 150,000 Japanese Americans whose loyalty could never be trusted, made martial law imperative. In April 1944, Judge Metzger ruled in favor of Duncan and ordered him released. Since the ruling raised doubts about the validity of all military court sentences, the army appealed in federal court. In October 1944 President Franklin Roosevelt officially rescinded martial law in Hawaii, thereby dissolving all military tribunals, but the appeals continued.
In December 1945 the case, now called Duncan v. Kahanamoku, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Two months later, the Court definitively overturned the military tribunals. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, expressed outrage over the army’s treating Hawaii like conquered territory: “Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country…. were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws.”
The Duncan ruling, like the larger history of military rule in Hawaii, has been largely obscured in current discussions of constitutional law. President Obama would do well, however, to consider the injustice meted out by past military tribunals in his native state.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Mr. Robinson, a native of New York City, is associate professor of history at l'Université du Québec à Montréal and author of By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans. His latest book is: A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America (Columbia University Press, July 2009).
Barack Obama was swept into office on a promise to close down the prison that the Bush administration created at Guantanamo in order to evade the constitutional protections offered prisoners in the United States. The new president nevertheless has approved the continuing use of military tribunals to try at least certain detainees. Faced with the difficult problem of defending the nation against terrorist attack, Obama and his advisers presumably hope that they can modify the structure of these courts so as to protect the innocent without making it impossible to hold the guilty. However, the clearest historical precedent is not reassuring in this regard. Rather, the military tribunals that operated in Hawaii during World War II created a shameful record of arbitrary justice, one which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently rejected.
Army courts were part of the military government that took power in the then Territory of Hawaii following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Commanding General Walter Short (who browbeat the civilian governor into approving unlimited martial law) declared himself military governor, dissolved the elected legislature and suspended the U.S. Constitution. The military regime proceeded over the following weeks to issue decrees regulating all aspects of civilian life. Meanwhile, the army closed down all civilian courts. When the courts reopened one week after Pearl Harbor, they were restricted to considering civil cases, a network of military commissions and provost courts was established to try all criminal cases.
These military tribunals, presided over by armed officers without legal training, were classic examples of drumhead justice, unfettered by rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, or other constitutional safeguards. Juries were forbidden and lawyers discouraged or even barred. The courts were effectively rigged against defendants. Of the 22,480 trials conducted in provost court in Honolulu in 1942-1943, 99 percent ended in convictions—one officer who heard 819 cases issued convictions in all 819! Judges frequently issued severe sentences, including imprisonment and hard labor, for trivial offenses, and no machinery existed for appeals.
In March 1943, nine months after the American victory at Midway ended any real threat of a Japanese invasion of Hawaii, the Army restored certain governmental functions to civilian control. Yet habeas corpus remained suspended and military tribunals continued to judge criminal cases. When in July 1943 federal judge Delbert Metzger ordered General Robert Richardson, the new military governor, to produce two prisoners who had filed habeas corpus petitions, Richardson refused and issued orders threatening Judge Metzger with imprisonment at hard labor unless he abandoned all such proceedings. Ultimately the parties agreed to moot the case.
In February 1944, though, Lloyd Duncan, a civilian laborer, was arrested for assault on two Marine sentries. Summarily found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment by a military tribunal, Duncan challenged his conviction. Defying army authorities, Judge Metzger granted him a writ of habeas corpus and scheduled the case for trial. During the ensuing hearing, Richardson and Admiral Chester Nimitz insisted that military tribunals were essential because of the continuing danger of invasion from Japan. However, Duncan’s lawyers introduced evidence that Japan’s fleet had been destroyed, and under cross-examination Richardson and Nimitz admitted that any invasion was very improbable. Richardson and Justice Department lawyers arguing the case then changed strategy. Turning to racism to buttress their case for military tribunals, they alleged that Hawaii’s racial diversity, notably the presence of 150,000 Japanese Americans whose loyalty could never be trusted, made martial law imperative. In April 1944, Judge Metzger ruled in favor of Duncan and ordered him released. Since the ruling raised doubts about the validity of all military court sentences, the army appealed in federal court. In October 1944 President Franklin Roosevelt officially rescinded martial law in Hawaii, thereby dissolving all military tribunals, but the appeals continued.
In December 1945 the case, now called Duncan v. Kahanamoku, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Two months later, the Court definitively overturned the military tribunals. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, expressed outrage over the army’s treating Hawaii like conquered territory: “Our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule and the founders of this country…. were opposed to governments that placed in the hands of one man the power to make, interpret and enforce the laws.”
The Duncan ruling, like the larger history of military rule in Hawaii, has been largely obscured in current discussions of constitutional law. President Obama would do well, however, to consider the injustice meted out by past military tribunals in his native state.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 11:53 AM
0 Comments
