Thursday, December 31, 2009
"The survival of civilization in something like its present form might depend significantly on the efforts of a single man," declared The New Yorker. The New York Times hailed that man as the "Custodian of the Planet." He is perpetually on the short list of candidates for Secretary General of the United Nations. This lofty eminence? Maurice Strong, of course. Never heard of him? Well, you should have. Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of "global governance" that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the "indispensable man" at the center of this creeping UN power grab.
Not that Mr. Strong looks particularly indispensable. Indeed, he exudes a kind of negative charisma. He is a grey, short, soft-voiced man with a salt-and-pepper toothbrush mustache who wouldn't rate a second glance if you passed him on the street. Yet his remarkable career has led him from boyhood poverty in Manitoba to the highest councils of international government.
Among the hats he currently wears are: Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. As advisor to Kofi Annan, he is overseeing the new UN reforms.
Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development -- the so-called Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.
"He's dangerous because he's a much smarter and shrewder man [than many in the UN system]," comments Charles Lichenstein, deputy ambassador to the UN under President Reagan. "I think he is a very dangerous ideologue, way over to the Left."
"This guy is kind of the global Ira Magaziner," says Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute. "If he is whispering in Kofi Annan's ear this is no good at all."
Strong attracts such mystified suspicion because he is difficult to pin down. He told Maclean's in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." And his career combines oil deals with the likes of Adnan Khashoggi with links to the environmentalist Left. He is in fact one of a new political breed: the bi-sectoral entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.
Strong started in the oil business in the 1950s. He took over and turned around some small ailing energy companies in the 1960s, and he was president of a major holding company -- the Power Corporation of Canada -- by the age of 35. This was success by any standard. Yet on more than one occasion (including once in Who's Who), Strong has been caught exaggerating. He claimed, for instance, to have forfeited a $200,000 salary when he left Power. The real figure, said a company officer, was $35,000. Why this myth-making? Well, a CEO is just a CEO -- but a whiz-kid is a potential cabinet officer.
And it is in politics that Strong's talents really shine. He is the Michelangelo of networking. He early made friends in high places in Canada's Liberal Party -- including Paul Martin Sr., Canada's external-affairs minister in the Sixties -- and kept them as business partners in oil and real-estate ventures. He cultivated bright well-connected young people -- like Paul Martin Jr., Canada's present finance minister and the smart money's bet to succeed Jean Chretien as prime minister -- and salted them throughout his various political and business networks to form a virtual private intelligence service. And he always seemed to know what the next political trend would be -- foreign aid, Canadian economic nationalism, environmentalism.
In 1966, by now a Liberal favorite, Strong became head of the Canadian International Development Agency and thus was launched internationally. Impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked him to organize what became the first Earth Summit -- the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The next year, Strong became first director of the new UN Environment Program, created as a result of Stockholm. And in 1975, he was invited back to Canada to run the semi-national Petro-Canada, created by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the wake of OPEC's oil shocks.
Petro-Canada was a sop to Canada's anti-American Left, then denouncing American ownership of the country's oil companies. Strong talked a good economic-nationalist game -- but he himself was a major reason why Canada's oil companies were U.S.-owned. Ten years before, while at Power Corporation, he had enabled Shell to take over the only remaining all-Canadian oil company by throwing a controlling block of shares in its direction. As Maclean's wrote, he now returned "amid fanfares" to rectify this.
After a couple of years, Strong left Petro-Canada for various business deals, including one with Adnan Khashoggi through which he ended up owning the 200,000-acre Baca ranch in Colorado, now a "New Age" center run by his wife, Hanne. (Among the seekers at Baca are Zen and Tibetan Buddhist monks, a breakaway order of Carmelite nuns, and followers of a Hindu guru called Babaji.) Not for long the joys of contemplation, however. In 1985, he was back as executive coordinator of the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, in charge of running the $3.5-billion famine-relief effort in Somalia and Ethiopia. And in 1989, he was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit -- shortly thereafter flying down to Rio.
Strong's flexibility, however, must not be mistaken for open-mindedness. His friends, his allies among Canadian Liberals, his networks in the UN and the Third World, even his long-term business partners (like the late Paul Nathanson, wartime treasurer of the Canadian-Soviet Friendship Committee) all lean Left. He has said the Depression left him "frankly very radical." And given his ability to get things done, the consistency of his support for a world managed by bureaucrats is alarming. As Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto's Saturday Night magazine:
It is instructive to read Strong's 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. Then as now, he invited to the conference the brand-new environmental NGOs [non-governmental organizations]: he gave them money to come; they were invited to raise hell at home. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., Britain, and Europe.
IN the meantime, Strong continued the international networking on which his influence rests. He became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission). He found time to serve as president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, on the executive committee of the Society for International Development, and as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund. Above all, he served on the Commission on Global Governance -- which, as we shall see, plays a crucial part in the international power grab.
Sometimes, indeed, it seems that Strong's network of contacts must rival the Internet. To list a few:
-- Vice President Al Gore. (Of course.)
-- World Bank President James Wolfensohn, formerly on the Rockefeller Foundation Board and currently on the Population Council Board; he was Al Gore's favored candidate for the World Bank position.
-- James Gustave Speth, head of the Carter Administration's Council on Environmental Quality, crafter of the doomladen Global 2000 report, member of the Clinton - Gore transition team; he now heads the UN Development Program.
-- Shridath Ramphal, formerly Secretary General of the (British) Commonwealth, now Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.
-- Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute -- which works closely with the World Bank, the UN Environment Program, and the UN Development Program -- and Co-Chairman of the President's Council on Sustainable Development.
-- Ingvar Carlsson, former Swedish prime minister and Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance.
But Strong is no snob; he even counts Republican Presidents among his friends. Elaine Dewar again:
Strong blurted out that he'd almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he'd donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn't confirm.)
I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?
Well, he'd had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.
But why? I'd asked.
"Because I wanted influence in the United States."
So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale -- if it is not part of Strong's mythmaking.
Most of Strong's friends are more obviously compatible, which may explain why they tend to overlap in their institutional commitments. For example, James Wolfensohn (whom Strong had hired out of Harvard in the early Sixties to run an Australian subsidiary of one of his companies) appointed him as his senior advisor almost immediately upon being named chairman of the World Bank. "I'd been involved in . . . Stockholm, which Maurice Strong arranged," says Wolfensohn, who, more recently, has been credited with co-drafting (with Mikhail Gorbachev) the Earth Charter presented for consideration at the Rio + 5 meeting in Brazil earlier this year. As head of the Earth Council, Maurice Strong chaired that meeting.
It's not a conspiracy, of course: just a group of like-minded people fighting to save the world from less prescient and more selfish forces -- namely, market forces. And though the crises change -- World War II in the Forties, fear of the atom bomb in the Fifties, the "energy crisis" in the Seventies -- the Left's remedy is always the same: a greater role for international agencies. Today an allegedly looming global environmental catastrophe is behind their efforts to increase the power of the UN. Strong has warned memorably: "If we don't change, our species will not survive. . . . Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse." Apocalypse soon -- unless international bodies save us from ourselves.
LAST week, Secretary General Annan unveiled Maurice Strong's plan for reorganizing the UN. To be sure, the notoriously corrupt and inefficient UN bureaucracy could do with some shaking up. Strong's plan, however, mostly points in a different direction -- one drawn from a document, Our Global Neighborhood, devised by the interestingly named Commission on Global Governance.
The CGG was established in 1992, after Rio, at the suggestion of Willy Brandt, former West German chancellor and head of the Socialist International. Then Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed it. The CGG naturally denies advocating the sort of thing that fuels militia nightmares. "We are not proposing movement toward a world government," reassuringly write Co-Chairmen Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, ". . . [but] this is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules." Quite so. As Hofstra University law professor Peter Spiro describes it: "The aim is not a superstate but rather the establishment of norm-creating multilateral regimes . . . This construct already constrains state action in the context of human rights and environmental protection and is on a springboard in other areas."
The concept of global governance has been fermenting for some time. In 1991, the Club of Rome (of which Strong is, of course, a member) issued a report called The First Global Revolution, which asserted that current problems "are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems." Also in 1991 Strong claimed that the Earth Summit, of which he was Secretary General, would play an important role in "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." In 1995, in Our Global Neighborhood, the CGG agreed: "It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance."
Americans should be worried by the Commission's recommendations: for instance, that some UN activities be funded through taxes on foreign-exchange transactions and multinational corporations. Economist James Tobin estimates that a 0.5 per cent tax on foreign-exchange transactions would raise $1.5 trillion annually -- nearly equivalent to the U.S. federal budget.
It also recommended that "user fees" might be imposed on companies operating in the "global commons." Such fees might be collected on international airline tickets, ocean shipping, deep-sea fishing, activities in Antarctica, geostationary satellite orbits, and electromagnetic spectrum. But the big enchilada is carbon taxes, which would be levied on all fuels made from coal, oil, and natural gas. "A carbon tax," the report deadpans, ". . . would yield very large revenues indeed." Given the UN's record of empire-building and corruption, Cato's Ted Carpenter warns: "One can only imagine the degree of mischief it could get into if it had independent sources of revenue."
Especially significant for the U.S. was the CGG's proposal for eventual elimination of the veto held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Commission knew that the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the U.S., would not easily surrender their vetoes, and so it recommended a two-stage process.
In the first stage, five new permanent members (without a veto) would be added to the Security Council -- probably Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, and Nigeria -- along with three new slots for non-permanent members. But the real threat to U.S. interests is the second stage: "a full review of the membership of the Council . . . around 2005, when the veto can be phased out." These plans are advancing. In March, the president of the UN General Assembly, Razali Ismail of Malayasia, unveiled his own formula for reforming the Security Council. It closely tracks the CGG's proposals. In particular, Razali proposed "urg[ing] the original permanent members to limit use of the veto . . . and not to extend [it] to new permanent members." He wanted to make the veto "progressively and politically untenable" and recommended that these arrangements be reviewed in ten years.
In July the State Department compromised -- accepting five new Security Council members but remaining silent on the veto. It plainly hopes that the veto issue will go away if the U.S. concedes on enlarging the Council. Yet the CGG's report makes clear that we are facing a rolling agenda to expand the power of UN bureaucrats. The veto issue may be postponed for ten years -- but what then?
"This is an initiative that should be resisted by the United States with special vehemence," says Ted Carpenter. For if the veto were eliminated, the United States would face the prospect of having other countries make key determinations that affect us without our consent.
THE Commission also wants to strengthen "global civil society," which, it explains, "is best expressed in the global non-governmental movement." Today, there are nearly 15,000 NGOs. More than 1,200 of them have consultative status with the UN's Economic and Social Council (up from 41 in 1948). The CGG wants NGOs to be brought formally into the UN system (no wonder Kenneth Minogue calls this Acronymia). So it proposes that representatives of such organizations be accredited to the General Assembly as "Civil Society Organizations" and convened in an annual Forum of Civil Society.
But how would these representatives be selected? This June, the General Assembly held a session on environmental issues called Earth Summit +5. President Razali selected a number of representatives from the NGOs and the private sector for the exclusive privilege of speaking in the plenary sessions. "I have gone to a lot of trouble with this, choosing the right NGOs," he declared. So whom did he choose?
Among others: Thilo Bode, executive director of Greenpeace, to represent the scientific and technological community; Yolanda Kakabadse, the president of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature; and "from the farmers, I have chosen an organic farmer, Denise O'Brien from the United States, who is a member of the Via Campesina." In what sense are these people "representative"? Whom do they represent? Were the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the chairman of Toshiba, and the president of the Farm Bureau all too busy to come talk to the General Assembly?
Another example of how this selection process operates was the "great civil society forum" convened at the behest of Strong's Earth Council and Mikhail Gorbachev's Green Cross International this past March. Some five hundred delegates met, supposedly to assess the results of the Earth Summit, but in reality to condemn the "inaction" of signatory countries in implementing the Rio treaties. The delegates were selected through a process based on national councils for sustainable development, themselves set up pursuant to the Earth Summit. Membership in these councils means that an organization is already persuaded of the global environmental crisis. So you can bet that the process did not yield many delegates representing business or advocating limits on government power.
This kind of international gabfest is, of course, a sinister parody of democracy. "Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues," notes Peter Spiro. "Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots." (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.)
Hilary French, Vice President of the alarmist Worldwatch Institute, justifies this revealingly as "a paradox of our time . . . that effective governance requires control being simultaneously passed down to local communities and up to international institutions." Paradoxically or not, the voters hardly appear in this model of governance. It bypasses national governments and representative democracy in order to empower the sort of people who are willing to sit in committee meetings to the bitter end. Those who have better things to do -- businessmen, workers, moms -- would be the losers in the type of centralized decentralization envisioned by Worldwatch. The result would be decisions reached by self-selecting elites. In domestic politics, we have a name for such elite groups -- special interests.
ANOTHER CGG recommendation is that the old UN Trusteeship Council "be given a new mandate over the global commons." It defines the global commons to include the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environmental systems that contribute to the support of human life. A new Trusteeship Council would oversee "the management of the commons, including development and use of their resources . . . [and] the administration of environmental treaties in such fields as climate change, biodiversity, outer space, and the Law of the Sea."
It is hard to see what this expansive definition would exclude from the jurisdiction of the Trusteeship Council. Biodiversity encompasses all the plants and animals on the earth, including those that live in your backyard. Will UN troops swoop in to stop you from cutting down trees on your property? Doubtless not. But a recent case near Yellowstone National Park may be a foretaste of how international agencies can meddle in U.S. domestic affairs.
Yellowstone has been designated a "World Heritage Site." These Sites are natural settings or cultural monuments recognized by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as having "outstanding universal value." Sites are designated under a Convention ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1973, and it is possible to place such sites on a "List of World Heritage Sites in Danger."
In this case, a mining company wanted to construct a gold mine outside the boundaries of Yellowstone. The normal environmental review of the project's impact was still proceeding under U.S. law. But a group of environmentalist NGOs opposed to the mine were not content to wait for that review to take its course. They asked that members of the World Heritage Committee come to Yellowstone to hold public hearings. George Frampton, the Clinton Administration's Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, wrote to the WHC saying: "The Secretary [Bruce Babbitt] and the National Park Service have clearly expressed strong reservations with the New World Mine proposal." Frampton added: "We believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and that the committee should be informed that the property as inscribed on the . . . List is in danger." Four officials of the WHC duly came to Yellowstone and held hearings. And at its December 1995 meeting in Berlin, the Committee obligingly voted to list Yellowstone as a "World Heritage Site in Danger."
"It was, in my opinion, a blatantly political act," declared Rep. Barbara Cubin (R., Wyo.) during congressional hearings about the listing. "It was done to draw attention, public reaction, public response, and public pressure to see that the mine wasn't developed." Jeremy Rabkin, a Cornell political scientist, agrees that the international listing of such sites "provides an international forum through which to put pressure on U.S. policy."
Would the mine really have endangered Yellowstone? We'll never know. The environmental-impact statement was never issued, and, under pressure, the mining company accepted a $65-million federal buyout plus a trade for unspecified federal lands somewhere else. Thus, even with no enforcement power, this UN dependency was able to make land-use policy for the United States.
These events prompted Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) to introduce the American Land Sovereignty Act. With 174 co-sponsors to date, the Act aims to "preserve sovereignty of the United States over public lands and . . . to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-federal lands surrounding those public lands." Congress would have to approve on a case-by-case basis land designations made pursuant to any international agreements.
But is U.S. sovereignty really in danger? In an interview, Strong dismissed Young's anxieties. "I do not share his concern. It is no abdication of sovereignty to exercise it in company with others, and when you're dealing with global issues that's what you have to do." He continues: "If you put yourself in a larger unit, of course, you get some advantages and you give up some of your freedom. And that's what's happening in Europe, that the states of Europe have decided that overall they're better off to create a structure in which they give up some of their national rights and exercise them collectively through the Union."
This example of the European Union, however, worries Ambassador Lichenstein. The EU's bureaucracy in Brussels, he complains, "is responsible to no one. Governments get together -- foreign ministers, finance ministers -- they presumably hand down the guidelines, but don't kid yourself, the bureaucrats are running things."
The Yellowstone case is an example of how "feel-good" symbolism about the environment can be transformed into real constraints upon real people imposed outside the law, with no democratic oversight and no means of redress. Ironically, Strong himself had a run-in with Colorado environmentalists over local water rights. They did not have the wit to call in an international agency against the New Age rancher -- or maybe they realized that Strong was one property owner whose rights the UN would respect.
AS troubling as the Yellowstone incident is, much greater potential for mischief lies in a new series of "framework treaties" designed to handle global environmental issues. Initially, the treaties called for voluntary actions by governments and set up a consultative process. But environmental activists like Hilary French know very well how this process works. "Even though it can look disappointing, the political will created [by these framework conventions] can lead to commitments of a more binding nature," she said. This is already happening. "Although its declaration of principles was transparently aspirational, the 1972 Stockholm world conference on the human environment is generally recognized as a turning point in international environmental-protection efforts," wrote Peter Spiro. "From it emerged a standing institution (the UN Environment Program); weak but more focused 'framework' treaties followed, which in turn are being filled out by specific regulatory regimes. The 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer itself included no obligations, but the 1987 Montreal protocols and subsequent amendments set a full phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances by 1996. The regime covers 132 signatories with a total population of 4.7 billion people. Between 1987 and 1991, global CFC consumption was in fact reduced by half. A similar filling-out process is likely to occur with the biodiversity and climate-change conventions signed at Rio."
The "conventions" that Spiro was talking about emerged from the Earth Summit chaired by Maurice Strong. They deal with two of the alleged global environmental crises -- global warming and species extinction.
At the time of the Earth Summit, some scientists predicted on the basis of climate computer models that the earth's average temperature would increase by 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century because of the "greenhouse effect." These predictions are controversial among scientists. And as the computer models are refined, they show that the atmosphere will warm far less than originally predicted. Furthermore, more accurate satellite measurements show no increase in the average global temperature over the last two decades. Finally, an important study published in Nature concluded that even if the warming predictions are right, it could well be less costly to allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise for a decade or more because technological innovations and judicious capital investment will make it possible to reduce them far more cheaply at some point before they become a significant problem. In other words, we needn't take drastic and costly action now.
The process forges ahead anyway. The Framework Convention on Global Climate Change signed by President George Bush at the Rio Earth Summit is already beginning to harden. Initially, countries were supposed voluntarily to reduce by the year 2000 the "greenhouse gases" to the level emitted in 1990. Then, a year ago, at a UN climate-change meeting in Geneva, the Clinton Administration offered to set legally binding limits on the greenhouse gases the United States can emit. In June of this year, at the UN's Earth Summit +5 session, President Clinton reaffirmed this commitment. And mandatory limits on carbon emissions are to be finalized at a global meeting of Convention signatories in Kyoto this December.
Estimates of the costs to the United States of cutting emissions range from $90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs. Global costs would be proportionately higher.
Yet while the U.S. may be committing itself to limits, 130 developing nations, including China and India, are excluded under the Framework Convention from having to reduce their emissions, which, on present trends, will outstrip those of the industrialized world early in the next century. If the U.S. and other industrial countries have to limit energy use while the Third World is exempt, many industries will simply decamp to where energy prices are significantly lower.
If they are permitted to do so. For, as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) asked at a conference on "The Costs of Kyoto" held by the Competitive Enterprise Institute: "Who will administer a global climate treaty? . . . Will we have an international agency capable of inspecting, fining, and possibly shutting down American companies?" Sen. Hagel is not alone is his concern. In July the U.S. Senate passed 95 to 0 a resolution urging the Clinton Administration not to make binding concessions at the Kyoto conference.
But the climate-change treaty is not the only threat to U.S. interests. Though Mr. Bush refused to sign the Bio-diversity Convention at the Rio Earth Summit -- chaired, remember, by GOP contributor Strong -- that only delayed things. The Clinton Administration signed shortly after its inauguration. Since the treaty obliges signatories to protect plant and animal species through habitat preservation, its implementation could make the World Heritage Committee's activities on U.S. land use seem penny-ante by comparison.
MEANWHILE, how much further down the path sketched out by the CGG will the UN reforms developed by Maurice Strong and announced by Kofi Annan last week take us?
The most important initiative is the recommendation that the General Assembly organize a "Millennium Assembly" and a companion "People's Assembly" in the year 2000. (The "People's Assembly" mirrors the CGG's "Civil Society Forum" idea -- among other things, only accredited NGOs would be invited to advise the General Assembly.) But what would these grand new bodies actually do? The Millennium Assembly would invite "heads of Government . . . to articulate their vision of prospects and challenges for the new millennium and agree on a process for fundamental review of the role of the United Nations [emphasis added]." That last innocuous phrase is diplomatese for opening up the UN Charter for amendment. If that happens, so could anything -- notably eliminating the veto in the Security Council.
The Millennium Assembly would also consider adopting Strong's Earth Charter. For the most part the Charter reads like another feel-good document -- its draft says that "we must reinvent industrial-technological civilization" and promises everybody a clean environment, equitable incomes, and an end to cruelty to animals -- but we have seen how such vacuous symbolism can have real consequences down the line. Inevitably, the Charter advocates that "the nations of the world should adopt as a first step an international convention that provides an integrated legal framework for existing and future environmental and sustainable-development law and policy." This is, of course, a charter for endless intervention in the internal affairs of independent states.
Which leaves external affairs. Hey presto! In line with the CGG's plan, Annan/Strong urge that the UN Trusteeship Council "be reconstituted as the forum through which member states exercise their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the global environment and common areas such as the oceans, atmosphere, and outer space."
For the time being, however, Annan and Strong have avoided calling for global taxes or user fees to finance the UN. One spokesman said that the issue was simply "too hot to handle right now." What they propose is a Revolving Credit Fund of $1 billion so that the UN will have a source of operating funds even if a major contributor (e.g., the U.S.) withholds contributions for a time. In short, the CGG's blueprint for a more powerful UN closely resembles the movement to expand the requirements of the Framework Convention on Global Climate Change. While the process may be piecemeal, the goal is clear: a more powerful set of international institutions, increasingly emancipated from the control of the major powers, increasingly accountable not to representative democratic institutions but to unelected bureaucracies, and increasingly exercising authority over how people, companies, and governments run their affairs -- not just Americans, but everyone. In short, Col. Qaddafi's definition of his leftist Green Revolution: "Committees Everywhere."
If so, the future looks good for Maurice Strong. One UN source suggested that, at the very least, he would like to be made Secretary General of the Millennium Assembly or the People's Assembly. Others suspect that, even at age 68, Strong is angling to be the next UN Secretary General.
Such eminence may help explain a puzzling incident in his early career. Having long had political ambitions, he decided to enter the Canadian Parliament. A candidate was evicted from a safe constituency by the Liberal leadership, and Strong moved in. Then, with only a month to go before the 1979 election, he suddenly pulled out of the race. Strong's business deals were especially complicated at the time -- he was setting up a Swiss oil-and-gas exploration company with partners that included the Kuwaiti Finance Minister and the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation -- and that is the explanation usually given. But maybe he just decided that for a man who wants power, elections are an unnecessary obstacle.
By Ronald Bailey Published in The National Review September 1, 1997
Mr. Bailey is a freelance journalist and television producer in Washington, D.C. He is author of Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martin's) and The True State of the Planet (Free Press).
Monday, November 16, 2009
Posted by DeannaZ on Monday, November 16, 2009
This judge ruled that any prayer using the name or title "Christ" is unconstitutional saying it is too sectarian but ruled the the use of the name or title "Allah" was constitutional.
This judge was deemed "not qualified" by the American Bar Association when they tried to get him through the last time.
Now, all of a sudden, in the very few reports you are hearing in the media they are saying the Bar Association says he is qualified so either the Bar has flip flopped or the media is misleading us again.
Now Sen. Harry Reid is trying to sneak him through again. Why, because he wants to fix the court to rule the way he wants because he is pro abortion and if he has to keep the "no government funding for abortion" in his bill to win and it is challenged in court the pro choice will win.
This judge has already ruled to block reasonable informed consent abortion laws.
He is also a former advisor to ACORN. This man has a long history of overt judicial activism and has stated that he believes it is the courts duty, not the people and states to make amendments to our Constitution. Wrong!!
Now I ask you, when you are going to commit suicide do you march down to the river and wade in sans watch and good shoes...with pistol in hand and blow your brains out, if so the gun would be in the water, or at best on the shore....no gun, but he killed himself.
A distraught soul looking for comfort goes to a quiet place they are familiar with when committing suicide, check the cases that have been recorded throughout history. No one goes to the river and wades in with a gun to kill himself. He was shot somewhere else and thrown in the river. I hope the "Daily Machine" can solve this one.
This is the second businessman in Chicago to die in recent days. Something must be going on in Chicago. Michael Scott was purported to have been heavily invested in the Olympics coming to Chicago, he stood to make millions on real estate business there. After the Olympic bid was lost, Scott was on the hot seat regarding his business with the Olympic Bidding. mmmmm This story sounds so fishy, it is not even funny anymore. Chicago politics at its best.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Take a look at these students at Washington University...are they not saying what we are all thinking, God bless them all. We need to support them and stand behind them and you too can join their organization Young Americans for Liberty
They are speaking out by building a gulag and telling us what could happen if we allow Socialism to takeover in this country, this land of liberty, America.
We were informed by the MSM that the young people are the ones that voted President Obama into office, I don't think so. These young people do not want their liberties trampled on and they do not want Socialism. They are brave enough to speak out and what does the University do but trample on their rights as free citizens in a free republic to speak out.
Seems to me that the conspiracy theorist were right, our freedoms are slowly being removed and replaced with "PC Behavior", that is politically correct language and politically correct ideas fomented by the liberals.
The Berlin Wall was removed, only to be raised years later in the United States of America...WAKE UP AMERICA!
As the leader of the free world, why in the world or should I say, how in the world did we allow ourselves to be put in a situation whereby we must pay off other nations for our carbon emissions?
Just because we have bartered and played both sides of the fence with these other nations, we have appeared to be the bully to other nations by lending them money and then forclosing when they wouldn't or couldn't pay us back, does the IMF ring any bells here? Just because we have invaded sovereign nations and taken over their livelihood (oil), (diamonds) and other resources, or just because we think the world stage is our play ground does not negate the fact that there are millions of Americans who do not want to go to a global governance, who do not want the NWO agenda.
Dana Milbank has written an article telling us the time and date of the arrival of the New World Order (NWO), in case anyone missed it. Our country has allowed an armed entourage of Ban-Ki Moon, the UN defacto leader from North Korea to stand in our country and give a speech telling us what we need to do. Now correct me if I am wrong but weren't we just trying defuse the situation with North Korea and now here we find ourselves being lectured by this man about what we need to do in the global scheme of things. I am confused, one day we are against North Korea and the next we are listening to their communist message that we need to get on board this NWO train.
So what could possibly be in the minds of John Kerry and Joe Leiberman to side with the enemy? Thirty years ago this would have been treason of the highest form. Now we look the other way and call it progress. These progressive socialist thinkers are leading us in a direction we DO NOT want to go and nobody is shouting from the rooftop for this to stop.
I believe that all nations should move forward into the twenty first century and that certain changes have to be made to move ahead, in other words things must change, but does this include giving up our place in the grand scheme of things and moving from the mansion to the trailer park so that we can all be equal, I don't think so...
In a perfect world changes are made to move forward but this change is causing some grief as they will be moving backwards not forwards. By taking away the middle class and regulating them to a lower realm and joining forces with the enemy is not progress, it is change none of us should have to live with and I am appalled at the lack of leadership at the helm of this great ship we call America. I am alarmed at the quietness with which this is being done.
It would appear that those in government who disagree with the NWO and the changes taking place, have joined the "Witness Protection Program", they have disappeared and there is no trace left of them.
I remember many books and articles I have read over the years of the great holocaust and how the people thought if they just kept quiet no one would bother them. This seems to be the prevailng fear amongst the general population in America. This Draconian measure of being "dragged away in the middle of the night" for being a dissident, being labeled a conspiracy theorist has taken hold in this country.
We were critical of the way the Jews allowed themselves to be lulled into apathy by Hitler and his regime and yet, we find ourselves doing the same thing they did during WWII. Why are we so complacent when the changes being made will affect our lives as well as the lives of the people we love the most, our own children?
So, when your children reach the age of understanding, sit them down and explain it like this:
When they came for the conspiracy theorist, your mother and I agreed we were not Conspiracy nuts, so we didn't say anything;
When they came for the main stream media, we weren't involved, so we didn't say anything;
When they took away our First Amendment Rights, we kept quiet for fear of causing trouble;
When they took away our Constitutional freedoms, we didn't want to cause trouble and be labeled a dissident, so we kept quiet;
When they taxed us so heavy that we could not make it without your mother going to work and us putting you into government controlled facilities (school), we stayed quiet so as to not upset our neighbors;
When they took away our healthcare they limited our lives by a few short years and we just felt that the "government knows best", so we didn't say anything;
When they took away our right to defend ourselves (guns), we knew then that we were in trouble because they had forever changed the way we lived our lives as free men in a free world with choices.
We are so sorry that we didn't stand up and defend our "Rights", we are sorry that we didn't listen to the conspiracy theorist who told us what would happen. We thought they were a bunch of nuts and that the things they were telling us...no one would dare do that in this country - America, land of the free!
But now you will have to live under a different set of rules than we did as children. You will not be able to call things as you seen them, because you might not be politically correct. If you see a terrorist, don't say anything, as you might be dragged into court to defend your position, as you don't have the right to say anything about anyone anymore, after all we "wouldn't want to offend anyone", especially not a terrorist!
Also, when the food shortage starts, don't grow a garden, as you will be limited to what you can consume, you will not be allowed to grow more than you can consume within a certain period of time and it is very short;
You see your mom and I didn't fight back, we didn't voice our opinion as we thought that we would be labeled a "combatant fugitive" (Patriot Act) and likely we would be jailed. We thought our place was with you and we couldn't let them take us away, so we kept quiet;
When the Patriot Act was written, we didn't even read it as we knew we couldn't do anything, I mean we were just two people who were not educated in the "ways of the world", so we sat quietly;
I hope you will forgive us for not speaking up and try to understand we didn't want to go to jail. Besides writing all those letters to congressmen and calling them all the time, they wouldn't listen to us anyway, so we didn't bother, we just let them play their role and we kept on re-electing them.
Please try to forgive us for selling you out on this as we had no idea it would get this bad!
Friday, November 6, 2009
This video just blows my mind. Why in the world would someone want to go to all the expense, rummage up all the equipment to take out one lone man in a little car. He didn't look threatening in the video, they clearly showed him looking at the camera, he looked like he was in shock.
First the armored tank rams his car from the front and then he is literally attack from all sides. He didn't have a weapon, it would appear. He seemingly posed no threat. Why were they so afraid of him. The very words he uttered were the cause of all of this take-down.
If what the man said was not true, they wouldn't have bothered with him. This says to me that what he was saying regarding the bio weapons in the flu vaccine must be true, otherwise they wouldn't have wasted their time with him. They could have written him off as a nut case, however, they are so afraid of what he has to say, they must literally destroy him. They will dress this up with all kinds of stories about how he did have a weapon, he was a threat, blah blah blah.
What have we come to in this country when no one can speak their mind. We were once a free nation, but they are literally destroying that portion of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and our Republic.
This whistleblower has been arrested, and deported all within a small amount of time and now he has suddenly disappeared and no one knows all the details. This is exactly what happens when you oppose the government forces.
Join http://www.firecongress.org or http://www.firecongress.meetup.com
more about "PLAGUE WARNING BACK IN AUGUST !", posted with vodpod
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Listen to what Mr. Rogers of Michigan is saying. The people need to hear this loud and clear and call your representatives and ask that they not vote this healthcare reform bill into law.
more about "Congressman Mike Rogers' opening stat...", posted with vodpod
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Now I cannot decide who or what the truth is here...one day we hear that the swine flu season is about over. The next day we are told that thousands are dying from the swine flu and that the schools, ALL schools in the Ukraine are closed as well as public meetings for three weeks due to one death.
The UK is predicting the following:
30% of population might catch swine flu = 18.3m people
15% of those might suffer complications = 2.74m people
2% might need hospital treatment = 366,000
0.1-0.35% fatality rate = 18,300-64,050
This prediction would mean that 65,000 people could die from the swine flu. To see how they arrived at this conclusion view the stats at BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8083179.stm The World Health Organization (WHO),predictions for the entire world population can be found at the BBC's site. Take a look at the numbers that they have listed for the USA 43,000 deaths. This is about four times what the national average is for flu deaths each and every year. The WHO is claiming that 177,000 have already died from the swine flu. These are scare tactics...if they are so willing to keep us informed, why are they not telling the truth about the serum (vaccine). What is contained in the vaccines will kill you or cripple or maim you quicker than dying of the swine flu itself. These are just tactics to keep us in line so that they can control us.
There are many homeopathic doctors who can tell you what needs to be done to prevent getting the flu and remedies for when you do get the flu. However, the pharmaceutical companies are not making money off of these homeopathic cures so they don't want you to know this information.
Atomic News Review states in an article from littlemountainhomeopathy.wordpress.comthat GlaxoSmithKline is the manufacturer of both the Swedish and the Canadian swine flu vaccines. The Swedish swine flu vaccine is called Pandemrix and the Canadian one is called Arepanrix, but they are actually the same vaccine with different names. Pandemrix aka Arepanrix contains squalene, thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum salts (among other goodies). As far as I know, the vaccine in Hungary, made by drug company Omnivest, is not being distributed outside of Hungary.
How the vaccines are created is very interesting. The UK is predicting that they will have 123,000m vaccines for the season, however, they are not expecting enough vaccines to be produced to cover the entire world, 6 billion people until next Autumn. So if you get the flu and you are in the UK, too bad, you will probably die, or at least suffer greatly, if their predictions are true. Somehow, this does not equate with what they are saying. We have a flu epidemic, but not a pandemic, if we have a pandemic, people will die because there will not be enough vaccines, to vaccinate everyone.
"The latest WHO figures showed there had been 440,000 confirmed cases of the H1N1 virus worldwide", this is a direct text taken from the BBC site. They go on to say that 5,000 people a week are coming down with the swine flu...these figures do not compute. These are scare tactics, designed to keep us all in line, NWO agenda.
The pandemic is not the swine flu, the pandemic is the dis-information that is being fed to the general public via the MSM.
In the state of Florida, as is with most states in the union, there is a law in place which permits mandates of certain medical treatments, such as vaccinations, in the case where there is a severe public health risk (Fla. Stat. 381.00315). The current proposed legislation is a bit more aggressive, however. The bill, called the Pandemic Response Bill, gives the state power to "forcefully quarantine people in the event of a pandemic", and threatens that "anyone who refuses to comply with the quarantine order could face jail time or a $1000 per day fine".
The Calhoun County Health Department in mid-state Alabama stated that the swine flu was no different than the regular flu. They stated "the flu is the flu is the flu period". The symptoms are the same, the difference is in the strain of flu, so of course they would need another vaccine to accommodate that particular strain. However, Calhoun County did not even receive their H1N1 vaccines until the end of October, which is after the swine flu season.
In the last two weeks, the swine flu and the vaccine pandemic blah blah had quieted down. Today, however, the BBC is reporting a completely different picture and it would appear that they are trying to scare people.
Now they are saying there is a shortage of vaccine, however there may be enough for little kids and pregnant women and yet, just this week I read in the newspaper that pregnant women shouldn't even be taking the swine flu vaccine. So, which is it, do we have enough vaccine, or not, and if not, why, and why are they now pedaling the H1N1 to pregnant women?
If we don't have enough vaccine then why scare the people, if you cannot treat the people why would you want to scare them.
Another question on my mind is HOW can you demand that people take the vaccine when you don't have enough. Is this a selective operation whereby they will decide who can have the vaccine and who will be just left to die.
How can you demand that everyone take the vaccine when there isn't enough for everyone...hello? Is anyone listening to how silly these scare tactics are and how ridiculous the dis-information is?
For a read of this story and all the details please go to BBC News!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
They left us behind...with unanswered questions regarding 9/11,,,the stimulus fund, the federal reserve..Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, Ruby Ridge, Murray Federal Bldg, the healthcare plan....they have excluded us, but we have turned the page. We are not going to take it anymore...we are studying and getting ready to find out what is going on.
more about "Facebook | Home", posted with vodpod
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 25. 2009 President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic, but why?
Now that the flu season is just about over, what is President Obama up to, one would ask?
According to CDC the flu season is just about over. Also the mandatory flu vaccine was not in the local hospitals, nor were the doctors surprised because nobody is supposed to get the 3 million doses of vaccine until the end of October. So why all this rush to enforce the Emergency Powers?
Allow me to explain what these powers give the government the right to do:
• The power to force mandatory swine flu vaccinations on the entire population.
• The power to arrest, quarantine or "involuntarily transport" anyone who refuses a swine flu vaccination.
• The power to quarantine an entire city and halt all travel in or out of that city.
• The power to enter any home or office without a search warrant and order the destruction of any belongings or structures deemed to be a threat to public health.
• The effective nullification of the Bill of Rights. Your right to due process, to being safe from government search and seizure, and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination are all null and void under a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
I don't clearly understand all of this as we have just come through the dangerous flu season and all is well and now we have the "Emergency Powers" to help us get through the rest of the year which doesn't look particularly dangerous to me nor to the doctors I have visited in the last 6 weeks.
If you ask me, I think something is afoot here and it may be more about Kool Ade than anything else. Mike Adams at JustGetThere.us has written a good article regarding this very subject. You can read his article on WHY President Obama may have signed the "Emergency Powers" measure so late in the season.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
You hear from both sides of the aisle, the Repubs and the Dems and yet they both sit down with the same people for dining purposes and discuss what they will do to keep us in line. After all they must answer to their handler who are the Money Mongers that literally own the country. When you own somthing, you control it and dominate it and tell it what to do. President Obama it has been stated that he is the precursor to the Anti Christ to bring us to one mind-set and that is the New World Order mindset.
Control of our money is being given to the Central Bank, which Bernanke says is several hundreds of banks that he cannot name. They are dismantling our Constitution and "We The People" need to stand up and get involved and take our country back.
We do not owe our allegiance to these people who pretend that they honor our flag and our country, they honor the all mighty dollar and their handlers. We are their slaves.
The Congress was voted in by "We The People", we do not owe them, they work for us. Isn't it time to take back control and tell them what we want.
The government has formed various and sundry alliances with other nations and whatever group of people that have resources we want. This leaves the USA in a position to not be calling the shots, but the power is in the hands of the money mongers. The economy of this country is being destroyed deliberately so that globalization can be achieved.
A world government would cater to the money mongers and the corporate raiders. "We The People" would become low man on the totem pole. What we want for our country would not be considered at all.
This New World Order is about enslavement, it is not about growing our country and 21st century change. This is about control to govern the poor.
Al Gore and his global warming is a farce and it is taking us down a road that will destroy this Republic completely.
President Obama is going to Copenhagen to sign away our sovereignty. Is this what you want in the USA?
more about "Fall of the Republic HQ full length v...", posted with vodpod
Friday, October 23, 2009
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered,if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget.The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason...They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises,it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true.
Be sure to read all the way to the end:
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Marriage License Tax
Personal Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Read the Shocking Bulletin That Washington Does Not Want You To See
HOW President Obama and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke are SACRIFICING your buying power, your quality of life, and your family’s future on the altar of political convenience …
WHY secret meetings now being held by G-7 nations may turn the gradual but steady decline in the dollar you’ve seen so far into an all-out CRASH …
I would love to give the preacher of this predominantly black church in Virginia a hug and a high five. This is obviously a leader and not one of the sheep. Perhaps we should each decide who our real leader is……… It is amazing to see that very little has changed in 4,000 years.
RECENT VIRGINIA CHURCH SERVICE - STIMULUS SERMON
Good morning, brothers and sisters; it's always a delight to see the pews crowded on Sunday morning, and so eager to get into God's Word. Turn with me in your Bibles, if you will to the 47th chapter of Genesis, we'll begin our reading at verse 13, and go through verse 27. Brother Ray, would you stand and read that great passage for us?...(reading)...Thank you for that fine reading, Brother Ray...
So we see that economic hard times fell upon Egypt, and the people turned to the government of Pharaoh to deal with this for them. And Pharaoh nationalized the grain harvest, and placed the grain in great storehouses that he had built. So the people brought their money to Pharaoh, like a great tax increase, and gave it all to him willingly in return for grain. And this went on until their money ran out, and they were hungry again.
So when they went to Pharaoh after that, they brought their livestock - their cattle, their horses, their sheep, and their donkey - to barter for grain, and verse 17 says that only took them through the end of that year...But the famine wasn't over, was it? So the next year, the people came before Pharaoh and admitted they had nothing left, except their land and their own lives. "There is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our land. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be servants to Pharaoh." So they surrendered their homes, their land, and their real estate to Pharaoh's government, and then sold themselves into slavery to him, in return for grain.
What can we learn from this, brothers and sisters?
That turning to the government instead of to God to be our provider in hard times only leads to slavery?
That the only reason government wants to be our provider is to also become our master? Yes. But look how that passage ends, brothers and sisters!
Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt ,in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly." God provided for His people, just as He always has! They didn't end up giving all their possessions to government, no, it says they gained possessions! But I also tell you a great truth today, and an ominous one. We see the same thing happening today - the government today wants to "share the wealth "once again, to take it from us and redistribute it back to us. It wants to take control of healthcare, just as it has taken control of education, and ration it back to us, and when government rations it, then government decides who gets it, and how much, and what kind. And if we go along with it, and do it willingly, then we will wind up no differently than the people of Egypt did four thousand years ago - as slaves to the government, and as slaves to our leaders.
What Mr. Obama's government is doing now is no different from what Pharaoh's government did then, and it will end the same. And a lot of people like to call Mr. Obama a "Messiah," don't they? Is he a Messiah? A savior? Didn't the Egyptians say, after Pharaoh made them his slaves, "You have saved our lives; may it please my lord, we will be servants to Pharaoh"? Well, I tell you this - I know the Messiah; the Messiah is a friend of mine; and Mr.Obama is no Messiah! No, brothers and sisters, if Mr. Obama is a character from the Bible, then he is Pharaoh. Bow with me in prayer, if you will. Lord, You alone are worthy to be served, and we rely on You, and You alone. We confess that the government is not our deliverer, and never rightly will be. We read in the eighth chapter of 1 Samuel, when Samuel warned the people of what a ruler would do, where it says "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day." And Lord, we acknowledge that day has come. We cry out to you because of the ruler that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation. Lord, we pray for this nation. We pray for revival, and we pray for deliverance from those who would be our masters. Give us hearts to seek You and hands to serve You, and protect Your people from the atrocities of Pharaoh's government.
In God We Trust...
WAKE UP AMERICA !!! VOTE IN 2010!!!
October 20, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
Earlier today, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bob Corker (R-TN) introduced "The Federal Reserve Accountability Act," an attempt to kill HR 1207/S 604 by passing a bill that prevents a full audit and full transparency from America's secretive central bank.
While language in this bill would permit a limited audit of the Fed's actions in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and similar high profile bailouts, it would not allow an audit to review the Fed's inflation of the money supply or its agreements with foreign central banks, among other shortcomings. read more
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Is it not enough that we are headed toward Socialism, that our rights have been taken away from us, free speech is no longer an option and our government lacks transparency, now we are headed towards becoming a third world country and the dollar has been devalued all over the world. The new American dollar will be the Amero, which aligns us with Canada and Mexico...how do you like this Change? Obama said he would bring change you could believe in...well this is your change...when they get through with your dollar all you will have left is change...loose change in your pocket and that will be used to pay for your new healthcare reform...Obamanation!
Watch this video as Hal Turner explains about the Amero dollar and what will happen and listen for when this dollar was designed.
more about "Dailymotion - Hal Turner Shows New AM...", posted with vodpod
Fear. Elections. Change. Power. Force. Revolution.
"There is something fundamental that just happened in America, and by default, the rest of the world. It is so fundamental, that it has been entirely ignored by analysts and grossly distorted by pundits.
Most commentators hail Obama’s victory as a reinvigoration of the American Dream. They cite the euphoria of countries that literally weeks ago, spat in America’s direction as proof of the nations capacity of reinvention. Talk of a new-age, of breakthroughs, of Peace in the World is everywhere - and everywhere, all of it, is wrong."
Hussein Rises Over America, Darkness Descends by Juanita Gonzales is also an excellent article on what has happened in America and how we got here.
"The overpaid cows in America’s newsrooms have overdosed on 0-Viagra, giving them a permanent hard-on (or swelling) for their Black Deliverance. You can’t hide from this malady, its the first airborne virus you are unlikely to ever physically touch yet you’re guaranteed to get.
Is it nauseating? Is it sick? Is it beyond irritating?" You can read more of Ms. Gonzales take on the Obama administration at Stop-Obama.org
These writers have put themselves out there to educate the American people, please pass these sites on to your friends...dare to comment, even if you disagree, this will help to educate us all for we need to fight this socialization of America.
ACORN corruption and Senator Harry Reid, who along with Nancy Pelosi, fellow Democrats and Obama are trying to destroy this country. Harry Reid is, in fact, more concerned about protecting ACORN than protecting the citizens of this country.
Monday, October 19, 2009, the Citizen Wells blog presented
“The Nevada Grassroots Coalitions invites you to participate in this exciting event. This is a chance for you to meet the team that is now leading our county to win back our state. If you care about your family and our state You can not afford to miss this event.
If all of the states would act this promptly, maybe something can be done in 2010..we need a new regime...the states need to come together to force the abolishment of socialization of America...thanks to the good people of Nevada, they are setting a pattern for all of the states to follow.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Karzai was our man in Afghanistan..where will leave the USA now if he indeed loses the election. Will Abdullah submit to the forces of the USA...how will our military fare during this time is an unknown factor and may be the reason that President Obama is not yet sending more troops prepared to fight. This could be a serious turn of events for the USA.
more about "BBC NEWS | South Asia | Karzai 'strip...", posted with vodpod
What happened to Obama's transparency he promised us? What happened to the discussion being televised via C-SPAN? We were promised change, this doesn't sound like change to me, this sounds like they are writing this bill in the dead of night and expect us to pay for it, this is not the change we had hoped for nor is it the change he promised. For more on this article check out the article at the Washington Post
on the legitimacy of Obama.
Mychal asked the question..who is behind Obama with this kind
of money to be able to seal all his records? Neither Hitler,
Chavez, Castro, Kruschev or Clinton had their records
sealed...nobody has demanded and received this kind of secrecy,
wonder what there is to hide from?
Why did Michelle lose her law licenses in 1993...? (research)
Why has the media been told not to cover these areas of
Obama's life...something smells fishy ... if you go to school
(college) and you earn a degree, wouldn't you want others to
know of your accomplishments? Not Obama, surely someone
went to school with him that could come forward and tell us
something....wonder if he has paid them all off to keep quiet? I
bet George Soros knows, let's ask him....say George, why don't
you let us see Obama's school records and while your at it,
maybe his birth certificate...
I have an idea, let us offer $1,000,000.00, thats million, to
anyone who is willing to come forward with information. How do
we get this million...if you are interested in knowing this info, send
$1.00 to......___ blah blah blah with your name and address and
phone number....monies to be held in a trust account for just such
an event. We will get the info to you within 24 hours after the
pay-off....if we cannot make the pay-off....everybody will be
reimbursed their $1.00.....sounds reasonable to me....the more
people we get to send in $1.00 the higher the amount will
go...until we can pay somebody to come forward....you cannot
keep everyone quiet forever....LOL
See Mychal Massie's
Globalist cover-up hiding Obama's past? @ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageid-112720
Friday, October 16, 2009
This is refreshing, these are people who care, people who do not want the government bailing them out. They just want to work and be left alone. They don't want their tax dollars being spent to bail out companies or entities that fiscally were not able to manage their own businesses.
These tea parties are happening all over the country with about 800 now happening, people are fed up with being told that they are going to have to pay more, so that the Big Boys can get their's. It is not fair to the average American who works and earns his living and tries to feed his family to have to support some failed CEO somewhere. Enough is Enough...let's go with the Tea Parties.
more about "Bankrupt tax protester gets own bailout", posted with vodpod
As Christians and Jews we do not believe in Sharia Law...why would we want to go backwards to the 17th century? Women have no rights under Sharia Law..men rule...this is not acceptable in this society. We must beware that Muslims are assimilating into our society with their ideology of hate and terror...all Islamic schools and Mosque must be closed. We as Americans do not believe in Sharia Law and we do not want it in our country.
Geert Wilder is speaking in the video of Sharia Law and what their ideology is. He is a very brave man who faces the fear of death everyday...would we had someone like him to stand up for our country...our soldiers bled and died for our freedoms and those of the United Kingdom, as Christians and Jews we must carry the load now, we must be ready to stand against all odds when the time comes. My grandfather, father and uncles bled on the battlefield against this ideology which is very similar to socilism and communism...we must stand against this Sharia Law.
Look at this video and decide today, what you will do!
more about "Warning to America", posted with vodpod
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Note: This has nothing to do with race, but has to do with greed,egotism, and spending of over $1,000,000 PER YEAR in personal salaries by the first lady in a time of severe financial problems in the U.S. This is amazing!!
From the Canada Free Press :
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants July 7, 2009 Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams.
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama...(who is she serving and what is she serving?)
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the
President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the
President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the
President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the
President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6.. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press
Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling
and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy
and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and
Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling
and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance
and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and
Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and
Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for
Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of
Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director,
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to
the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A.. (Deputy Associate
Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life..
One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared`that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama.
Sorry America !
by Dr.Paul L. Williams
For people who claim to want change, they have succeeded, change has come, but what is the price? These people claim to dispise capitalism and yet they don't mind spending other peoples hard earned money to flaunt their own materialism while the slaves eat cake...and Dr. Paul Williams is right, our MSM never even covered this...the BBC and the Canadian Free Press tell us what is going on at home when we should be made aware by our MSM. The MSM today is worthless. I can remember the time when a newspaper man's word was his bond and you could take it to the bank. Today they dress the newswomen like "Barbie dolls" and expect them to relate the news, their cleavage is showing, or the skirts are so short or their outfits too tight, this is suggestive advertising and it is meant to dumb us down even further.
Thank you Dr. Williams for sending this to us.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Study "Disproving" Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers
The Pharmaceutical industry has failed to do the double-blind study needed over a period of time to evaluate the ingredients that are being put into the vaccines. This just might prove that the vaccines are not fit for human use and where would that leave the pharmaceutical industry?
Please go to Natural News and read the entire article on this subject, as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger has done his homework!
The Food and Drug Administration is suppose to vet drugs before the public gets the drugs. Why hasn't the FDA approved what is in these vaccines so that they are not killing people? There have been 4,000 deaths attributed to the vaccine H1N1, 4,000 lawsuits filed against the FDA for their oversight in not preparing the public for what could be a "killer" vaccine.
Maybe President Obama should appoint a new czar to oversee the FDA and then he could appoint a czar to oversee the czar....sounds like these investigation committees that are formed and nothing ever happens, i.e., the 9/11 investigative committee. Why do we spend so much time and money on oversight committees when they are doing nothing, and come up with nothing, zero, nada. Isn't it time we had a "Special Investigator" appointed to oversee the overseers (czars) that the President is appointing. These czars have not been vetted, according to standards normally used in appointing people to cabinets in the White House. Why all of a sudden is this even happening in our society and who started this czar appointment idea in the first place.
The vaccines that are supposed to be shipped to health organizations by the end of this month (October) have not been fully tested and the ingredients leave a lot to be desired. The testimonies in front of Congress have left a sour taste in the mouth of the public consumer. Why has nothing been done about it? Why haven't the czars (Websters Collegiate definition of a czar - A male monarch or emperor; a person having great power; an autocrat. An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity.) investigated the validity of the ingredients in the drugs being forced onto the American public when they claim to care so much about our health, i.e. Obama Healthcare Reform Bill HR3200, and our welfare?
To see the full article go to Natural News