Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NWO. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

"Progressive" Colorado Senate Runs Amok!


FROM:
Reaping the Whirlwind: the Colorado Model and Gun Control

"On February 18, the Democrat-controlled Colorado House of Representatives passed all four gun control bills over an out-numbered Republican minority’s noisy and occasionally emotional protests.

House Bill 1224 would prohibit the sale, transfer, or possession of large capacity magazines (15 for firearms and 8 for shotguns). It passed 36-29.

House Bill 1226 would prohibit concealed weapons from being carried into any building, structure, stadium, or arena used by a public institution of higher education (unless the permit holder is a security officer employed by that institution). It passed 34-31.

House Bill 1228 would require that those seeking a criminal background check in order to purchase a firearm pay the costs of that background check. It passed 33-32.

House Bill 1229 would require all sellers of firearms, including transactions between private individuals, to receive a background check through a licensed gun seller before the sale can be completed. It passed 36-29.

These four bills are headed to the Senate where Democrats hold a 20-15 advantage over Republicans. And Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, is expected to sign at least three if not all four of the bills, making them laws of the state..."

READ THE REST

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

When Occupiers go off their meds

Any legitimate message that the Occupy Movement originally had was soon eclipsed by the actions of looney-toon rent seeker groups who wanted to take advantage of the media coverage and the party atmosphere.  This video clip illustrates what happens when someone tries to inject some "real world" education into the minds of misguided youth:


Sunday, May 20, 2012

AGENDA 21: "SUSTAINABLE" TOTALITARIANISM

read: RIO+20: The Boyz from Brazil

When I began watching the clip below, I thought I was watching a comical parody of the Zeitgeisters---and the other useful idiots---that are being used to advance global totalitarianism.  Watching the clip to the very end, I soon realized that it was not meant to be a parody, simply the presentation of life under a green "solution."


Thank god that others see through the lunacy of the Green Totalitarians:

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Wind Turbines:They're ugly, noisy, expensive bird-killers; and they actually CAUSE "warming".

Wind farms are warming the earth, researchers say
By Eric Niiler
Published April 30, 2012
Discovery News

"New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomenon that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.
Researchers used satellite data from 2003 to 2011 to examine surface temperatures across as wide swath of west Texas, which has built four of the world's largest wind farms. The data showed a direct correlation between night-time temperatures increases of 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) and the placement of the farms.
"Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology," Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change said in an e-mail to Discovery News..."

Read more:

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The Enemy Within the Gates is in Washington DC

Anyone who would vote for Barack Obama (and his Progressocrats) this November understands nothing about economics, national interests, American sovereignty, World History, or American ideals.

Either that, or they simply don't care about America.

Bill Whittle exposes the corruption and insidious agenda of the Obama Regime:

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Former East German describes where America is headed

When I was a young, clueless, anti-establishment type in the early 70s, I had a flirtatious infatuation with marxist theory; it sounded like a "fair" and viable socio-political economic system for a large agrarian-based population.

Then, I learned that in any "real world" situation involving human nature, there is often a big difference between something sounding good in "theory" and how it works in "practice."  Free-market capitalism isn't "perfect"---because it involves "imperfect" people.  But it works a helluva a lot better than any other political economic system: to create the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people, with the greatest amount of freedom.

Would someone please inform our President that history has proven that government-delivered socialism and the nationalization of industries and resources DOESN'T WORK!


Friday, April 6, 2012

KUDOS FOR THIS NEW ZEAL KIWI!

Trevor Loudon appreciates and understands American Exceptionalism; even if our President doesn't:
CHECK-OUT HIS NEW BOOK: "Barack Obama and the Enemies Within"

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Hating the "Happy Warrior": a hobby for Leftists

KUDOS to all those courageous Americans who speak truth to power, and are excoriated by Leftist loons---and the Left-controlled mass media---for daring to speak it.  Andrew Breitbart was HATED by Progressive lemmings, by radical socialists (commies), by poverty pimps, and by the corrupt Liberal mass media he exposed.  The Happy Warrior will be sorely missed, and America owes a great debt to this patriot---for exposing the corruption and deception that he did, in his short 43 years: despite all the hateful personal attacks and death threats by the "tolerant" Left. He is gone now, but because of his courage and patriotism, a thousand new flowers will bloom in each of his footsteps; and they will carry-on his work.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Immigration Enforcement does not equate to "hate"

A great clip taking an honest look at the illegal alien problem in America.  The first step in solving the problem is to quit referring to these economic invaders as either "undocumented" or "immigrants."  Is a drug dealer "slinging rock" out on the streets referred to as an "undocumented pharmacist"?  Is a home-invader referred to as an "undocumented guest"?  Are European or Japanese tourists in the US referred to as "temporary immigrants"?


For every personal anecdote about a hard-working, friendly neighbor who happens to be in the country ILLEGALLY, there are numerous personal anecdotes from victims of property crimes and physical injury crimes committed by an illegal alien.


Monday, February 13, 2012

Uncle Ted Sends Piers to Bed

When it comes to arguing against 2nd Amendment rights, never invite Ted Nugent to the debate.  He is THE celebrity advocate for armed self-defense and concealed weapon permits; and the phrase "political correctness" is not in his vocabulary. America needs a lot more outspoken, passionate, "damn yankee" patriots like The Nuge.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Is it "Islamophobia"...or rational and reasonable "concern"?

The word (and suffix) "phobia" was originally used by psychologists to denote "an irrational fear" of some object, substance, animal, situation, person(s), or place...etc. The key word in that definition was "irrational": meaning a lack of rational or reasonable basis for the fear.  However, from the psychologist's point of view, it is still very reasonable and rational to experience fear---or to be concerned with---certain "things", people, or situations that are dangerous (i.e. pose a threat to life, limb, family, or property): it simply means your instinctual drive for self-survival (or "genetic survival") is engaged with your intellect. 

Over the last few decades, however, usage of the suffix "phobia" was appropriated and distorted by political activists to mean: " irrational fear and/or hostility, prejudice, or hatred of." The intended meaning of any word created with the suffix "phobia" is now rather fuzzy; hostility is not the same as fear; prejudice is not the same as hatred; cognition is not the same as action.

In the public arena, usage of the term "Islamophobia" is very much in vogue these days . So, let's take an objective look at the veracity of the term---as it is often used by "Progressives" and Islamists today: in reference to criticizisms of the ideology of Islam or the spread of Islam throughout the world.  Is it now irrational to question or opine

Or conversely, is it actually reasonable and rational for non-Muslims to have---and express---some concerns about the ideology of "Islam"?  Is it reasonable and rational for them to have concerns about the Islamic mandate to spread Islam? And most importantly, does the fundamental ideology of Islam---including its self-mandated Expansion---pose a danger or threat to the life, limb, family members, or prosperity of non-Muslims?


Below are 2 video clips currently posted on youTube (although they may get yanked) that were made by Muslims FOR Muslims. [Unfortunately, the first one is in Arabic, so we must trust that the on-screen translation is accurate. The second one, however, is in English, and was made for English-speaking Muslims living in the UK and the USA.]





Many "Westerners" are completely unconcerned about the underlying ideology of Islam, or about the IMPORTATION of Islamism through immigration policy. What they NEED to know is that ISLAM is very concerned with THEM.

If you are a non-Muslim (infidel), get EDUCATED about YOUR ASSIGNED ROLE as a dhimmi under the ideology of Islam, and THEN decide if it is reasonable and rational for YOU to have concerns---and do something about those concerns; even if you are then IRRATIONALLY labeled an Islamophobe.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Hillary Clinton Pushes to Make Criticism of Islam a Crime in the US

Our Progressive, global-village-idiot, Hillary Clinton, is at it again.  This time, she wants to help the UN advance its NWO agenda to criminalize any criticism of Islam throughout the world---including the United States. Apparently she laughs at the idea of freedom of speech in America, and the idea that the US Constitution is the law of OUR land; not the dictates of a corrupt "governing" body like the UN. I am an American, Hillary; not a "citizen" of the world.

by snipe Posted December 11, 2011

[...] "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011..."

Read the rest of this informative article here.


Thursday, December 1, 2011

THE NWO is the dark shadow cast by Globalization

NAFTA was just the beginning. The eventual formation of a North American Union was the ultimate goal.

An Open Borders policy between NAU members---like the one the European Union has---would destroy American sovereignty and pollute our culture. They would both become sacrificial lambs on the altar of Davos Globalization.

In the video clip below, Jerome Corsi offers a great explanation of how the SPP was intended to advance The New World Order--controlled by Davos Men.

Monday, September 13, 2010

What is the legitimate role of government in America?

The social and political conflict taking place in America is based in two very diverse concepts of the legitimate role of government. In order to gain a rational perspective on the "legitimacy" question, one should first take a good look at the purpose of government in general.



In a nutshell, "government" is the system of political authority that exists within a sovereign state: to establish the rights and responsibilities of citizens; to manage the common resources of the state; and to protect the citizenry from foreign and domestic threat (to life, limb, and property). Government accomplishes these functions by passing and enforcing laws, and by levying taxes to pay for services.

In a "free society", government derives its legitimate authority to do those things by means of an underlying social contract with The People who are being governed.

When discussing "social contract" within the context of "government", most socio-political philosophies use the hypothetical "state of nature" as their starting point:

Living in the "state of nature" is an imaginary situation whereby every "individual" has unlimited "natural" freedoms, and the "right to all things." In such a world, the individual’s freedom to act upon his own self-interests is constrained only by his or her personal power, his or her individual conscience---and by the laws of Nature.

In the state of nature there is no structured social order, because there's no universal code of conduct between individuals---nor any recognized authority to enforce such a code. Everyone is free to exercise their natural right to do or to have anything they want---regardless of any prior claim---and humanity remains in a perpetual state of violence and Anarchy.

Eventually, rational individuals come to realize that it is in their best self-interest to "voluntarily associate" and cede some of their "natural rights", as long as others agree to do the same ("I will not act on my natural right to harm you, kill you, or take your property, if you agree to do the same). In time, the natural state gives way to the formation of society that then institutes authoritative bodies to promote and enforce social contracts.


Following America's War for Independence, the social contract between legitimate government authority and peaceful citizen compliance was codified in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The underlying social contract states that The People agree to peacefully comply with the rule of (Constitutional) law---as long as their elected government abides by its Constitutional limits of authority, and performs its defined responsibilities.

"A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either."
~Thomas Paine

Any elected government that overreaches its legitimate authority, or neglects its defined responsibilities, is in violation of that sacred American social compact---our U.S. Constitution; and civil disobedience then becomes a legitimate, patriotic response to their government breeching the contract.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~ Patrick Henry
For Americans, the legitimate role of government was extensively written about by our Founding Fathers, and was written into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The U.S. Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the authority---or the role---of engineering social change, or orchestrating "social justice" through forced redistribution of national wealth. Those ideas are un-American and destructive to the American social contract.

"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then, indeed, their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution."
~Thomas Jefferson

"I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right."
~Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience, 1849)

"We cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong.... There are good laws and there are occasionally bad laws, and it conforms to the highest traditions of a free society to offer resistance to bad laws, and to disobey them."
~Alexander Bickel

"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived---and treats him accordingly."
~ Henry David Thoreau

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
- Abraham Lincoln

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

The Mythology of the Amnesty Movement

The recent political push for another mass amnesty is predicated upon the propagation of several myths concerning illegal immigration. In his recent speech to promote bipartisanship support for a Comprehensive Immigration Reform package, President Obama based his argument for an earned amnesty program upon several of those myths.



"Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it's not possible."
(The first sentence of this section of his speech uses the old "if this is true, then this is also true" fallacy, and then the second sentence is simply a "bare assertion fallacy.")

"Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive."
(Whereas a plan to find and round-up 11 million people for deportation---all at one time---would be very expensive and would pose all sorts of logistical challenges, that certainly does not mean that it would be impossible; nor does it mean that the ONLY viable alternative to a massive "round-up and removal" is to give legal residency status to millions of illegal aliens.

For example, if the illegal aliens living in this country could no longer keep or obtain jobs---and could no longer obtain public benefits and free health care---most of them would voluntarily leave and return to their own countries.)

"Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric."
(I'm relatively certain that the fabric of American society could survive the absence of illegal aliens, Mr. President---especially in this depressed economy.

There would be a period of adjustment however---as new job openings started springing-up in construction, housekeeping, landscaping, and the food-and-beverage industry. And we'd have to adjust to less congestion in classrooms, traffic, jails, and hospitals. But I think the fabric of America would survive all that, Mr. President.)

"Many have children who are American citizens."
(Those children are only considered to be citizens because of a correctable misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment clause erroneously granting them birthright citizenship. Anyway, if "family unity" is an important consideration in the enforcement of immigration law, then if there is not a citizen-relative willing and capable to raise them here, then dependent anchor-baby citizens should accompany their illegal alien parents back to their native country.

"Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job."
(Wouldn't a responsible parent tell their child that they were illegally present in the country, long before they applied to go to college or applied for a job? But then again, a responsible parent wouldn't make a criminal of their child to begin with.)

"Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."
(Whereas the first sentence about "migrant farm workers" may be true, it implies that there is no other way to get America's crops harvested than with illegal alien labor. What about using legal-immigrant labor, or county prison "chain-gang" labor, or "at-risk" youth diversionary program labor, or AmeriCorps VISTA?

In return for lowered taxes, lower insurance rates, smaller class sizes, and less violent crime, I think most patriotic Americans would tolerate paying a nickel more for a head of lettuce.)


After setting the stage for his proposal to grant another blanket amnesty (rather than aggressively enforcing our immigration laws), Obama then presented a basic look at how this mass amnesty would have to be "earned."

"...we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship..."

But what if an "earned" amnesty plan is legislated, but millions of illegal aliens still do not "come out of the shadows"---because they don't want to "register, pay past taxes, pay a fine, and learn English"?

And after they have "registered"---and have been given legal residency status---how long will you let them remain living (and breeding) in the country if they don't pay-off their taxes and fines...or learn English?

But most importantly, how does the granting of another mass amnesty prevent or discourage anyone else from illegally immigrating here; especially if our borders are not secured?

Sunday, July 4, 2010

A Guide to Destroying America through the Democratic Process



1. Oppose any legislation that would require voters to provide proof of identification at polling places. Claim that it would discriminate against the "disenfrachised": minorities, immigrants, students, women, the poor, and the elderly.

2. Give speeches decrying "low voter turnout" at elections, and introduce methods to facilitate greater "civic involvement" in the "democratic process." Institute mail-in ballots, motor-voter laws, publicly-funded voter registration drives---and Universal Voter Registration.

3. Perpetually promote ethnic-based "identity"---and "cultural retentionism"---rather than cultural assimilation. Claim that "diversity" and multiculturalism are desireable goals for a society. Employ the word "community" to describe everyone that shares a common ethnic ancestry. Then claim that the entire "community" is being "oppressed" by the "white majority"---because of their ethnicity; this will create a greater sense of "shared vicimization"---and "ethnic solidarity"---that can be more easily manipulated by a politician.

4. Deceptively use the term "immigrant"---without any differentiation---to refer to every non-citizen that is living in America. In similar fashion, use the blanket term "residents" to refer to everyone living in the area---regardless of their immigration or citizenship status---when speaking about local political issues.

5. Give speeches about why "immigrants" (see #3) should be granted the right to vote in "local" elections---such as school board and municipal elections. Create a sense of "legitimacy" for the proposal by giving historical---and current---examples of individual States and municipalities that have granted voting rights to "immigrants" in local elections.

6. Create a nebulous concept of "immigrant (see #3) rights." Promote the idea in conjunction with the term "human rights": people will begin to believe that "illegal immigration" to America is a "human right" that subordinates immigration laws. In order to gain political support from marxists---and labor unions---promote "immigrant rights" as a struggle for universal "worker rights."

7. Promote the idea that a blanket amnesty should be granted to long-time, "hard-working", illegal "immigrants" who have "built their lives here"---and who were simply acting on a fundamental "human right" to migrate to a "better" place to raise their families. Sprinkle your speeches with phrases like "America is a nation of immigrants", "they're only doing the jobs Americans won't do", "we have a moral obligation", and the phrase "family unity."

8. Repeat Step #5---in concert with Step #2---until formerly-illegal "immigrants" are routinely voting in all local elections in every State. Oppose any political movement seeking to have the Supreme Court correct the long-misinterpreted "14th Amendment" right of "anchor-baby" citizenship.

9. Repeat Steps 6 through 8 "as necessary" until un-assimilated, "foreign-born" voters and their children outnumber multi-generational-American voters.

10. Elect "progressive" candidates that continue to promote multiculturalism, redistribution of wealth, open-border policies, and global socialism.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Obamunism: Choosing Unions over Environment

Murdock: Jones Act another problem in fixing Gulf spill ScrippsNews

Why did Obama wait so long to do anything about the spill in The Gulf? He wasn't sure which group he should politically pander to...