Maurice Strong – The Interview

Posted on December 16, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Yesterday we talked to you about the “Earth Scouts” and showed you the newly released interview from Muarice Strong. Today we have the rest of that interview.
Maurice Strong, George Soros, and others of their ilk are involved in a campaign toward One World Order. They are almost there.
While they pretend to be on a mission to empower low income and poverty stricken individuals, they are merely propelling their agenda forward into a hefty profit for
themselves. As with the Democrat party, and certain Black Activists, they merely use the guise of their David and Golliath epic battle to hypnotize another generation
into believing the lies they tell and laughing all the way to the bank.
Tomorrow we will highlight what the current administration is doing to that end, but today let’s listen to Maurice Strong in his own words.  If you are just learning about him, please see the links provided in yesterday’s column for a further education.
Maurice Strong Thoughts on RIO+20 in 2010 (birth of the Earth Charter)
Maurice Strong Thoughts on Climate Change
Maurice Strong Thoughts on Peace and Sustainability
Maurice Strong and His Motivation in Life
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )

Free Speech – A Waning Right In America?

Posted on November 5, 2009. Filed under: General Info | Tags: , , , , , |

Recently the Heritage Foundation did an article on a briefing held for members of Congress and their staffs on how to conduct townhalls via the internet, thereby avoiding face to face contact with their constituents. The briefing was put on by the Congressional Management Foundation who completed a grant funded report, paid for with your tax dollars. The Heritage Foundation article said:
The CMF study consisted of 21 townhall meetings where Members of Congress and CMF provided a moderator: “spoke via voice over IP, and constituents asked questions and made comments by typing them. Only off-topic, redundant, unintelligible, or offensive questions were screened, and only questions asked by people who had not yet asked a question were prioritized.”

CMF does not say what qualifies as offensive, but if this summer is any indication that definition would include anything that the Congressman did not want to talk about. In other words, this report urges Congressmen not to actually interact with their constituents, but to avoid them altogether by holding safe townhalls they can completely control. And what did CMF find where the results of these Potemkin townhalls?

The online town halls increased constituents’ approval of the Member. Every Member involved experienced an increase in approval by the constituents who participated. The average net approval rating (approve minus disapprove) jumped from +29 before the session to +47 after. There were also similar increases in trust and perceptions of personal qualities – such as whether they were compassionate, hardworking, accessible, etc. – of the Member.

The lesson: avoid your constituents’ inconvenient questions and your approval ratings will rise. And this is a taxpayer funded study.

Congress is actually using your tax dollars to pay social scientists to find ways they can avoid actually talking to their constituents while improving their chances of reelection.

Anyone in Congress who uses this method in lieu of face to face contact should be automatically voted out. They don’t seem to mind meeting us in person when asking to represent us during the campaign, but apparently once they are in the least actual contact and real communication the better.

This doesn’t seem to apply, however, to when they are groveling for our forgiveness. Such was the case yesterday when various members of the Republican party horned in on the People’s Housecall in Washington, D.C. Rep Michele Bachmann, (R)-MN, who is one of the few heroes in Washington D.C., and who does her job effectively, had put out a call for citizens who could to meet her at the Capital steps Thursday at noon. From trustworthy accounts of the rally, 25,000-30,000 taxpayers came out. Hooray for those who sacrificed their time, hard earned money, and effort to do so.

The rally was supposed to last an hour, it lasted two. This thanks to many opportunistic Congressmen and Congresswomen who wanted to feign kinship with the protesters. Pardon my attitude, it’s just that if they were really doing their jobs, we wouldn’t be in the predicament we are in. Many of them have been there for years, and, without apology, have taken part in the fleecing of America. Perhaps not all, I understand that, but why wait until a campaign to oust all office holders to “stand up” for our principles? Too little, too late? That’s a personal decision every voter will have to decide for themselves. They urged everyone to bombard the three Congressional office buildings, and even provided a map and guidance. I had to wonder if they would have been so bold if it were Republicans were the target of the frustration? My feeling is they would have been hiding under their desks or running for their nose plugs like Harry Reid.

It was encouraging to see all of them standing on the Capital steps, heralding the praises of our forefathers and Constitution. I can only pray they mean it. I am fairly sure, Michele Bachmann excluded, it was the fear that still grips them after learning of the size of the crowd, an estimated 1.7 million marchers, on 09/12/2009. That, I feel, was their “come to Jesus” moment.

Time will tell and I am grateful, newcomer or not, for every Constitutionalist in the halls of the Capital. There are many battles before us and we can use all the help we can get.

They can start by doing all in their power to thwart any plans to clamp down on free speech.

Petition seeks FCC probe into ‘hate speech’ in media

A World Net Daily article recently pointed out that a group of major religious denominations and organizations, launched a petition to the FCC requesting it investigate “hate speech in the media” citing their feeling that hate speech may play a role in “hate crimes”. This came immediately on the heels of “hate crimes” legislation, offering special protections to crimes committed against those enjoying “alternative” lifestyles,  being inappropriately inserted into a military appropriations bill. WND states:

The petition is promoted by members of the “So We Might See” coalition that includes the United Church of Christ, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, the Islamic Society of North America, United Methodist Communications, Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
“The possible correlation between hate speech and violent crime gives us great pause. Immigrant, minority, and religious populations are often targets of hate speech before they are subsequently the target of physical hate crimes,” the petition says.

“Hate speech in the media is a growing problem that must be examined before it can be solved. So We Might See supports efforts to increase the resources available to the public to understand hate speech. As members of the faith community, we will do our part to ask our members to raise their own voices condemning hate speech when they see it and to ask for all citizens to conduct themselves with civility,” it says.

The move, however, was so controversial that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, while a part of the coalition, refused to sign on to the petition.

“USCCB supports the establishment of a broad public forum to debate the difficult constitutional and regulatory issues, including the potential danger to religious speech, raised by the petitioners,” it said in a separate statement. “We are asking the FCC to make available a proceeding where the public can attempt to describe speech anyone deems harmful, and where the public (including Catholics and the bishops) can raise important constitutional constraints on government action regarding speech, including religious speech.

“We are not participating in any campaign to censor any organization, program or commentator,” the organization said.

Troubling Signals On Free Speech

 The above article is particularly scary due to something presented by Stuart Taylor, Jr in The National Journal, also last week:

It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I’m talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton’s own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
…I sketch below how the resolution could be construed to require prosecuting some offensive speech and how it could be used in the long run to change the meaning of our Constitution and laws, based on doctrines developed by legal academics including Obama appointee Harold Koh, the State Department’s top lawyer.Also troublesome on the free-speech front are various remarks by Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission’s associate general counsel and chief diversity officer. Lloyd asserted in a 2006 book, “The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.” He co-authored a 2007 report calling for regulatory changes to close “the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio.” In 2008, he praised the “incredible … democratic revolution” of Hugo Chavez and implied approval of the thuggish Venezuelan strongman’s pattern of shutting down news media opposed to him.

That’s how I read Lloyd’s videotaped statement, first aired by Glenn Beck of Fox News, in which he said: “The property owners and the folks who then were controlling the media rebelled [against Chavez], worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”

Then there was the June 5 high school commencement speech in which White House Communications Director Anita Dunn called Mao Zedong — one of history’s greatest mass murderers and an implacable enemy of free speech — one of “my favorite political philosophers.” Dunn has, coincidentally, been the point person in President Obama’s attacks on Fox News.

…The council’s October 2 resolution is ostensibly an endorsement of “freedom of opinion and expression,” which seems ironic, given the track records of such members as China, Cuba, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

But the real problem is a provision, which the U.S. championed jointly with Egypt, exuding hostility to free expression.

That provision “expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human-rights law, to address and combat such incidents” (emphasis added).

If they feel ‘offended,’ you’re fired

Then there’s this by Drew Zahn at WND:

The troubles for Professor Thomas Thibeault of East Georgia College seem to have begun during an Aug. 5 faculty sexual harassment training seminar, when he questioned the assertion – as he understood it – being presented by Mary Smith, the school’s vice president for legal affairs, that the feelings of the offended constituted proof of offensive behavior.
“What provision is there in the sexual harassment policy to protect the accused against complaints which are malicious or … ridiculous?” Thibeault asked.
According to Thibeault’s description of the events, Smith replied, “There is no provision in the policy. I must emphasize that if the person feels offended then the incident must be reported to the college authorities.”
“So there is no protection against a false accusation?” Thibeault pressed.
“No,” Smith is said to have responded.
“Then the policy itself is flawed,” commented Thibeault.
Two days later, a police chief was waiting to escort Thibeault off campus. The professor, under the circumstances, believed he was fired.
Then in subsequent weeks, Thibeault was informed his contract would not be renewed for the following year and that a faculty committee had concluded he violated the college’s sexual harassment policy. For doing what, for saying what, Thibeault still doesn’t know.
… Said FIRE spokesman Adam Kissel, “The professor still has not received anything in writing detailing what he is accused of doing. … If professors can’t engage in vigorous debate on college campuses, who can?”
But the letter from FIRE to the school got down to business:
“The Supreme Court has explicitly held on numerous occasions that speech cannot be restricted simply because it offends people. In ‘Street v. New York,’ 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969), the court held that ‘[i]t is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.’ In ‘Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri,’ 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973), the court held that ‘the mere dissemination of ideas – no matter how offensive to good taste – on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of  “conventions of decency,”‘ it warned the school.
School officials declined to enter the conversation.
          “Since this matter is an ongoing personnel mater, I cannot discuss it,” said school president John Black via e-mail.
FIRE officials said Thibeault was notified Oct. 20 “that he had been reinstated due to lack of evidence.”
But then Black issued the professor a “‘reprimand’ for unspecified ‘offensive’ speech – again without presenting any notice, hearing, evidence or witnesses.”
Are we noticing a pattern here? Our free speech is being seriously threatened. First they started out by intimidation, citing political correctness. I suggest to you “political correctness” is what’s helping to ruin our country. The left attempted to intimidate us by making us feel as if we didn’t fit in, as if we were the minority. I will tell you, WE ARE THE MAJORITY! It is up to “WE THE PEOPLE” to do what’s right for this country. Stand up! Do not take it any more! Speak out! Don’t let them intimidate you. Be strong! That’s what this women is doing:
From Janet Allquist, in her own words, for The Missouri Record
When given the opportunity to do this article, I started thinking back to the events leading up to my typing four words on the computer, “ONE VOICE AGAINST SOCIALISM” and taking the printout to a local office supply store to have it enlarged and laminated on a large poster. 
That step was easy enough.  It wasn’t as easy for me to gather the courage to take a lawn chair to the heavily traveled intersections of Hwy K and Hwy N in O’Fallon, MO and sit there beside the road with my sign, wondering if someone might confront me verbally or worse.  But as passersby began to honk horns and wave and give me thumbs up, my apprehension turned to excitement and motivation because I sensed that many other people agreed with me.
Never in my lifetime have I seen anything in this country like what has unfolded before us in the last year.  I have watched in shock and disbelief as the following events, and others not listed, have occurred under this administration.   This president has never been subjected to any tough questions by the adoring mainstream media and press corps (his cheerleaders).  My perception is that every event is carefully scripted with friendly individuals planted in the audience to ask softball questions. 
I also believe this administration is so arrogant and convinced they have a mandate to “fundamentally change America” that they are brazenly forging ahead to destroy our economy and make this a socialist/Marxist country.  This president has a silver tongue (as long as the TelePrompTer works).  People voted for his charm and good looks, and against George Bush and the war, completely ignoring Obama’s thin resume, empty suit, shadowy friends and far left voting record.  Just now common sense Americans are waking up to the fact that America has been hijacked by the far left wing of the Democratic Party and that with control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they can and are doing whatever they please with no checks and balances.  It isn’t helping that our so-called Republican leadership is spineless.  The least they could be doing is jumping up and down screaming “Treason!”
Some of the many reasons I’m out protesting include: 

  • Michelle Obama (on video) stated “For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country.”  Who would have believed that such a brazenly anti-American, chip-on-her-shoulder woman would end up as first “lady?”
  • Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Chicago church the Obamas attended for twenty years, (on video) spewed out hatred of America with comments such as “G*d damn America.”  How many of us would sit back and listen to that kind of preaching for 20 years and not change churches (unless we agreed with it)?  Has anyone heard Obama speak out against Wright’s sermons? His silence speaks volumes.
  • The Obamas’ close friendship with terrorist William Ayres is very disturbing to me.  My parents taught us as children that we are known by the company we keep and that birds of a feather flock together.  Obama has appointed 44+ czars, some of whom are admitted Marxists/communists and have published books promoting these radical beliefs.    I heard Van Jones, a self-described communist, now the eco czar, speaking (on radio) about suicidal gray capitalism.  In a speech at Berkeley, he referred to all Republicans with a vulgar expletive.   It appears to me that Obama has surrounded himself with revolutionaries who have evil intentions.  I fear for my country and for my children and grandchildren.  Too many detrimental things are happening too quickly and against the best interests of America.   
  • How dare this president apologize for my country either here or when visiting foreign countries!    America is the greatest nation in the world.  Our troops have fought and died all around the world for freedom, NOT for socialism.  We are the most generous people in the world, always there first to help in any disaster and constantly giving food and money to less prosperous nations.  If he doesn’t believe we are the greatest country in the world, he has no business being president.  Other than having the power to implement radical changes, why would he even want to be the president of a country for which he holds such contempt?  
  • I watched the video of Obama bowing to a Saudi king.  The administration tried to explain it away.  Have you heard the expression, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”  America’s president should bow to no worldly king!
  • This president stated (on video) that we are not a Christian nation.  I disagree, as do millions of other Christians across this country.  Our nation was founded upon Christian principles. George Washington was administered the Oath of Affirmation of office as prescribed by Article II Section 1, on April 29th, 1789, to which he added:  “So help me God.”   “In God We Trust” is on our money and inscribed on our national monuments.   Clearly Christians exclusively are under siege by this administration and not a word of reprisal from the mainstream media, all of whom are in bed with Obama.  Never for a moment would the media tolerate vile remarks against Muslims, but it’s fine against Christianity.    Thank God for FOX News and conservative talk radio, the only places where the truth is exposed.  And now, the Obama administration, under the guise of the Fairness Doctrine, is attempting to shut down our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.
  • Another video clip showed Hugo Chavez receiving a big hug and glowing praise from Obama.  This thug dictator got just what he wanted from an American president, legitimacy and photo ops.   Obama played right into his hands.
  • The recent happenings of attempted curtailment of free speech, control of the Internet, and now indoctrination of our children in their classrooms are all reminiscent of similar happenings in Germany in the mid and late 1930’s.  We all know what happened to personal freedoms after that.
  • The list goes on: all the bailouts, out of control government spending, takeovers of private corporations, nightmare healthcare reform legislation that will ration healthcare for seniors and people with special needs.  (This infuriates me because I have an autistic grandchild).   It will lead to long wait times for diagnostic testing and surgeries, resulting in many preventable deaths, substandard healthcare, bankrupting our nation, and placing so much debt on our children and grandchildren that they will never realize the American Dream. 
  • The administration is going after the CIA agents who have kept our country safe from another attack by terrorists for the past eight years.    This is exactly the kind of policy that gutted the CIA in Clinton’s administration and led up to the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Could it be that a weakened CIA where agents are intimidated by fear of prosecution and therefore don’t pursue investigations, would be beneficial to this administration? 
  • What about the insanely restricted interrogation methods our troops in Afghanistan now have to follow?  They require that captured terrorists be flown out of the area within 48 hours, making it virtually impossible to get useful information from these prisoners due to the time constraint.  Does anyone else wonder why this is happening?

In summary, I’m out there protesting on the street corner because I am scared to death for the future of our country.  I am angry and totally fed up with this administration and all of the politicians as a whole, and I am not going to take it any more!  Too much is at stake to sit on the sidelines.  I sense deep inside that something is terribly wrong inside our government and that these anti-American, anti-capitalism czars are intentionally pushing our country quickly down the road to bankruptcy and socialism/Marxism.  I believe that this administration is looking for any excuse, including accusations of civil disorder by those of us daring to peacefully protest, to declare martial law so they can take control and shut down media opposition.   I hope and pray that I am wrong.  And I hope and pray that God allows us more time to unite against and stop what I perceive to be treason against America.

We are stewards of the America that we pass on our children and grandchildren.  Are you willing to stand with me and fight for freedom as our patriot forefathers did for us?

Now, Mrs. Allquist is joined by hundreds every weekend. I would like you to use Mrs. Allquist’s tale to find inspiration to speak up, before we are no longer allowed to.











Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Special Report – Is Michelle Obama the new Jackie Kennedy?

Posted on July 12, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State, General Info, Soapbox | Tags: , , , , , |

I think not.
While recent articles about her $6000 purse (the white house says $875) fall in line with Jackie’s sense of fashion, other similarities do not exist.
Despite growing up poor in a Chicago south side one bedroom apartment, Michelle Obama was given opportunity after opportunity. While her grades would have precluded a white woman of equal standing admission to Princeton and Harvard, her color paved her way. Was she grateful for this opportunity? Not to hear her tell it. In her thesis at Princeton in 1985, she states:
“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my “Blackness” than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second. These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”
This would make me wonder a couple of things.
First off, was she not grateful at all to receive an education not granted to most other children, no matter what their color? It certainly does not appear so.
Second of all, was it the world against Michelle, or more likely Michelle against the world?  Did growing up best friends with Santita Jackson, Jesse Jackson’s daughter, as well as a frequent guest in the Jackson household, alter her perceptions in life so that everything boils down to the poor downtrodden African-American population, no matter what reality actually presented?
While her grades were not good enough to get her into Princeton, her color was perfect. Same goes, no doubt, for her further education at Harvard as well as her placement at prestigious Sidley Austin, as an associate specializing in marketing and intellectual property, where she was the first black employee.  Michelle then went on to mentor Barack Obama and the two eventually wed.
After the marriage and the death of her father, Michelle left the law firm and her license to practice is currently listed on the Illinois website as “court ordered non-practice status”  as of 1993. She first served as assistant to Chicago mayor Richard M. Daly and later became assistant commissioner of planning and development. She founded Public Allies Chicago, which provided young adults with leadership training for public service careers. She was executive director of a non-profit held up as a model for AmeriCorps by President Bill Clinton.
One may lean toward thinking this is where she became so well acquainted with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. However, her husband was hired back in 1983 as a community organizer by a disciple of Alinsky’s. In August 2008, Michelle gave a speech in which she quoted directly from Alinsky’s work. She said, “…Barack stood up that day”, in regards to a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about The world as it is and The world as it should be…” … All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do- that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be. This premise is taken directly from Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals, Chapter 2.
Perhaps it is from this experience, Michelle became convinced of her blatantly urban, pro central-planning, pro Marxist agenda.
While life continued to offer her opportunity after opportunity, such as the one to join the University of Chicago staff in 1996 as the dean of student services (where she established it’s first community service program), she apparently still was disheartened. She was then named the University of Chicago Hospitals’ executive director of community and external affairs in 2002. When her husband became Illinois State Senator, her salary jumped from $121,900 to $317,000. Not to fear, though, it was good for the University. Barack Obama introduced legislation in 2006 for a $1,000,000 earmark for the hospital.
Despite all the privilege and opportunity afforded Mrs. Obama, she candidly confided to the American public during her husband’s campaign, that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Not because they were voting for a black man, but because they were hungry for change.
The first lady’s vision of change was clearly spelled out in other public appearances made during the campaign. She is quoted as viewing Americans as divided and living in isolation with broken souls. She is confident, however, that government is coming to fix us. She’s a big fan of sharing of the pie, which she made brilliantly clear in several of her campaign speeches. In her speech at UCLA she talks at length how her husband is the only person in the campaign suited to save Americans. At USC she says Americans are comfortable living with their misconceptions as it makes us feel comfortable with our ignorance. For some reason, this video did not get the play the others did, thus I am posting it here:  In another of her famous campaign speeches, she said the following: “They don’t want the whole pie. There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach. If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”
At Jesse Jackson’s 65th birthday party, she was there with her good friend Santita Jackson. In an interview  given to Lemon, she was quoted as saying: “I love this man, I grew up in his house. I’ve seen it all. … You know, it’s an honor, I mean, to be compared (Barack to Jesse Jackson)- he’s done it, right? .. Well, we talk to him as much as we can, so a lot of it is just looking and listening and watching and making sure we’re thinking and doing the right thing. But, yes, we will be consulting with him and all the leaders in the community.”
Also, interesting that during the campaign, as Barack criticized Hillary for previously sitting on the Wal-Mart board, Michelle was serving on the board of one of Wal-Mart’s largest suppliers, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Michelle then immediately cut ties with the company.
So now, after complete dedication to empathetically championing the poor, who can blame her for sporting a $6000 purse, a purebred dog, children attending the finest private schools, six figure out of town dates. She deserves it? Right? She’s worked so hard, for so long, and has received nothing in return. No wonder she’s finally proud of her country.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...