Vermont drafts food sovereignty resolution to protect health, food freedom
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer(NaturalNews) In response to the recent passage of "food safety" bills S. 510 and corresponding H.R. 2751, the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty has drafted its own resolution called "The Vermont Resolution for Food Sovereignty." Crafted to declare and protect the food and health freedom rights of all Vermont citizens, the resolution is essentially a warning to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it does not have jurisdiction over the food choices of the People of Vermont.
The resolution declares that food freedom is a "fundamental prerequisite to life," and that individuals have every right to save seeds, grow what they wish, and buy and sell the fruits of their labor without interference from an over-zealous, tyrannical government. And if any federal official tries to infringe on these rights, the People "shall resist any and all" of them.
Additionally, the resolution declares that, on the basis of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the People of Vermont completely reject any and all "Federal decrees, statutes, regulations or corporate practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume and exchange food and farm products within the State of Vermont."
The recently-passed "Food Safety Modernization Act" essentially hands over control of the nation's food supply to the FDA. The legislation gives the agency free reign to mandate food recalls at will and require even small producers to jump through burdensome regulatory hoops in order to buy and sell their goods. The entire scheme has nothing to do with food safety and everything to do with giving the FDA more control over the food supply.
The Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty is encouraging concerned citizens to review the resolution and encourage their local and state politicians to co-sponsor it, both in Vermont and in other states.
Sources for this story include:
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Vermont drafts food sovereignty resolution to protect health, food freedom
Thursday, December 23, 2010
There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts
There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts
December 21, 2010
Footprints remain after people walked on the snow-covered beach at Weston-Super-Mare, England. Photo: Getty Images
Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson, London's mayor
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
Well, folks, it's tea-time on Sunday and for anyone involved in keeping people moving it has been a hell of a weekend. Thousands have had their journeys wrecked, tens of thousands have been delayed getting away for Christmas; and for those Londoners who feel aggrieved by the performance of any part of our transport services, I can only say that we are doing our level best.
Almost the entire Tube system was running on Sunday and we would have done even better if it had not been for a suicide on the Northern Line, and the temporary stoppage that these tragedies entail. Of London's 700 bus services, only 50 were on diversion, mainly in the hillier areas. On Saturday, we managed to keep the West End plentifully supplied with customers, and retailers reported excellent takings on what is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.
Advertisement: Story continues belowWe have kept the Transport for London road network open throughout all this. We have about 90,000 tons of grit in stock, and the gritters were out all night to deal with this morning's rush. And yet we have to face the reality of the position across the country.
It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well - touch wood - when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.
In a few brief hours, we are told, the snowy superfortresses will be above us again, bomb bays bulging with blizzard. It may be that in the next hours and days we have to step up our de-icing, our gritting and our shovelling. So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?
Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.
Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?
Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.
Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.
He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.
He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time - and he makes a prophecy.
I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more. Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.
Is he barmy? Of course he may be just a fluke-artist. It may be just luck that he has apparently predicted recent weather patterns more accurately than government-sponsored scientists. Nothing he says, to my mind, disproves the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that our species is putting so much extra CO? into the atmosphere that we must expect global warming.
The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.
Bring the Children Home: An Open Letter to the Police - please circulate
An Open Letter to the Police - please circulate
An Open Letter to the PoliceThis evening, December 13, 2010, a piece of draconian legislation was passed into law by the Canadian senate. I refer to Bill C36, which is just one piece in the wider global plan called Codex Alimentarius. The bill controls consumer products and is widely understood to be the precursor for another bill that will give Health Canada the power to take some 75% of natural health products off the shelves.At least as important as this is the part of the bill that removes the law of trespass. Until tonight, a police officer needed a warrant to enter private property in Canada. No longer. Under the new law, police can enter and seize private property at any time, for any reason, even if the person in question is not suspected of any crime.We have to look at this with a wide lens. The same policies regarding consumer products, natural health products, and organic farming are coming in at dizzying speed around the world. At the same time, legislation is passing that gives police unprecedented powers to oppress the people in total disregard to human rights and the constitution of any nation.Things are only going to get worse for a few years yet. As the economy continues its downward trend – and it will, because it is planned that way – millions of people will take to the streets in protest, as we are already seeing all over Europe. Millions more will peacefully start refusing to cooperate with governments that, more obviously every day, do not represent the people.In conversation with one of the senators who voted the bill into law, I warned him that Canadians will not cooperate with it. His answer: “The police will have to deal with that.” In other words, big business and the government that represents it is counting on the police to do their dirty work.It is time for the police to make a decision. When the order comes to use guns, tasers, water cannons and so on against innocent people, what are you going to do? When you are told to enter and search the homes of political dissidents, will you obey, or will you remember the oath you swore which says “I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects”? Make no mistake, these orders will come. We are in a situation similar to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, only this time it is on a worldwide level and there are more people awakening and refusing to cooperate. The excuse “I was just following orders” was not enough in the Nuremberg trials, and it will not be enough this time either. This is the time to have enough courage to follow your conscience, not your orders. Do you want your children to live in a police state, knowing they have no privacy even in their own homes? It is time to put the truncheons and the tasers down and refuse to follow orders to harm your neighbours. This is the line drawn in the sand.
Jon Christian Ryter's Conservative World
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Not only is Obama attempting to steal the Internet
from the American people, the UN is poised to
steal control of cyberspace from its caretakers.
As Barack Obama's Federal Communications Committee Chairman Julius Genachowski takes the unprecedented and completely unconstitutional step to expand the federal government's control over free speech by seizing regulatory control of cyberspace, the UN is now deciding if its claimstake rights trump the the rights of the nation which holds the key to the onramps of the information superhighway.On Dec. 21, the five FCC commissioners voted 5 to 3, along political ideological lines, to expand the reach of the gnarly fist of totalitarianism via what the Obama Administration calls "net neutrality" and what the social progressive purveyors of the electronic media call the "Fairness Doctrine." The only problem is, as confirmed by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on April 6, 2010, the FCC and the Obama Administration lacks both the constitutional and congressional authority to do so.
Adding to what is now growing into an international war to control cyberspace, the United Nations has joined the debate with its own plans to regulate the Internet—which it views as a transnational entity that exceeds the authority of any single, or group, of nation states. Naming itself as the caretaker of cyberspace is something the Utopians, who need to control not only public speech but private thoughts to succeed in their plan to dominate all of the nation states of world, have been trying to accomplish for years.
When the UN meeting on the Internet Government Forum took place at the UN Building in New York on Wed., Dec. 15 they were sure they were on the cusp of success. Particularly since the mainstream media in the United States did not see the story as "newsworthy," and the New York Times—which, tongue in cheek, still insists it prints "...all the news that's fit to print," didn't see anything fit to print, and ignored the story. The story was first reported by iTnews in Australia. Australia is the only "free" nation in the world that has thus far experienced web censorship during an experiment by the Aussie government on Sept. 2, 2009 to see how effectively they could shut down the Internet by blocking the International broadband feed and interrupting all telephonic and satellite broadband (high speed) connections throughout the entire country through the State-owned Telstra International Internet Network. Since almost every Internet ISP in Australia is tied to Telstra, about 90% of the home and business broadband and cell phone Internet users in the land down-under was affected.
It had a devastatingly crippling affect in the cities, but in most of the rural parts of Australia where dial-up is still the prevalent form of Internet access, they barely knew their urban neighbors were without Internet access until the experiment was over and the the Sydney Morning Herald reported it as a "cyber-glitch" on Sept. 3. (I reported the story in BEHIND THE HEADLINES on Sept. 5, 2009. The story was carried on News With Views on Sept. 7,. 2009 under the title "Internet Censorship Going Global."
On March 18, 2009 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange published a list of 2,300 websites that were on the Australian Communications and Media Authority [ACMA} (the Australian equivalent to our Federal Communications Commission) hit list. The WikiLeaks leak was substantially correct even though the Australian government and the ACMA denied the published report by claiming that since the ACMA list contained on 1,370 suspect websites, what WikiLeaks published was obviously not their list.
In point of fact, as it turned out shortly thereafter, there were some 9,000 websites targeted for removal or censorship by the Australian Parliament.
It is interesting that Assange, the world's most notorious cyber-whistleblower, has not only been able to get his hands on heavily classified documents from just about everywhere in the world, but even when he was finally apprehended and arrested in England for alleged sex crimes in Sweden where his servers are housed, he was granted bail while England and Sweden talked about extradition over tea, and while the United States (which already his grounds to charge him with sedition in the United States) continues to ponder whether or not they have enough evidence to charge him with violating the 1917 Sedition Act or, at least, with charging him with possession of top secret US documents. The question is: why has someone not charged him with the theft and the publishing of classified documents—not only in the United States, but elsewhere as well? Because in the vernacular of former Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel, the globalists behind the scheme to control access to the onramps of the information superhighway can't let a good crisis go to waste. If Assange was imprisoned and slapped with a lifetime prohibition to cyberspace, there would be no immediate Internet crisis that required immediate regulation to protect citizen comsumers.
Two of the websites on the ACMA hit list were made public by a Aussie public official. Neither were not pornographic or pyramid sales scheme websites—the yardstick by which websites were theoretically judged. Both were political-content websites that do not, and never did, post sexual content of any type. Nor were they selling anything other than the typical political paraphernalia. Nor did either display or advocate violence of any type against anyone. They merely expounded Christian political beliefs—like thousands of patriotic, Christian websites in the United States. One was a pro-life, anti-abortion website. The only contained political content advocating for a less corrupt government and advocating for the right of political dissent. Most of the content on the second site dealt with efforts by the Australian government to restrict free speech through State filtration devises that censor content.
While the ACMA admitted censoring both websites, they said they did so only "...because the websites originated from other countries."
In response to initial media report from iTnews.com on Dec. 17 that the UN was mulling its options in regulating the Internet, and a tsunami of faxes and emails flooded members of both Houses of Congress over the up-until-then covert attempts by the FCC to regulate the Internet, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack [R-CA] offered House Resolution 1775 arguing that "...the Internet has progressed and thrived precisely because it has not been subjected to the suffocating effect of a government organization's heavy hand. The attempt of the United Nations to overtake something that is so central to our economy—like the Internet—is offensive and completely out of line. We have a hard time keeping the Federal Communications Commission's hands off the Internet. Imagine having to convince governments like Syria, Iran and Venezuela."
Sadly, Sonny Bono's widow is asking the Obama Administration to prevent the UN from trampling on US free speech rights as the FCC prepares to assert authority over Internet access without congressional approval to do so. The FCC's regulations with put barbed teeth in what the left calls "net neutrality."
Vint Cerf, who is widely regarded as the 'father of the Internet" posted a statement on Google's Public Policy Blog on Friday, Dec. 17 denouncing the UN scheme (while ignoring the FCC's planned regulation of the Internet which he views as a gnat on the butt of a dwarf) saying: "...last week the UN Committee on Science and Technology announced that only governments would be able to sit on a working group set up to examine improvements to the...[UN's]...Internet Governance Forum [IGF]—one of the Internet's most important discussion forums.
This move has been condemned by eh Internet Government Caucus, the Internet Society, the International Chamber of Commerce and numerous other organizations—who have published a joint letter and launched an online petition to mobilize opposition. Today I have signed that petition on Google's behalf because we don't believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works—protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let's fight to keep it that way."
As the rest of the world ponders the fate of the Internet in the clutches of the totalitarians who control the UN's Internet Governance Forum which set the control mechanism in motion a few months ago when they met—again, somehow evading the media radar scope—in Vinius, Lithuania, the FCC, also evading the media radar screen, was putting the regulations together to control "net neutrality." In the United States, the policies being implemented by the FCC will institute a very dangerous and very unconstitutional policy that will violate free speech rights.
Congressman Mike Rogers [R-MI], a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, said the FCC's power grab "...will give the federal government control over all aspects of the Internet." Congressman Fred Upton [R-MI] who will chair the
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee when the GOP takes over in another week, sent a letter to the FCC demanding that it "...cease and desist" its efforts to regulate the Internet, since the FCC "...does not have the authority to..." do so." Upton told the FCC that the GOP "Will use rigorous oversight, hearings and legislation to fight the FCC's power grab."
In addition, a group of Republican Senators have also written to Genachowski telling him, as Upton did, that the FCC has no constitutional or congressional authority to implement rules to regulate the Internet by bypassing the legislative process. Both Democrats and Republicans are now calling for the FCC to cease and desist. Over the last few days, scores of insiders who silently watched the stealth regulation shape up are now speaking out against the FCC's covert regulation of the Internet and, even louder, at the prospects of the UN declaring itself to be the international traffic cop of the information superhighway.
Occupant Obama poised to steal the Internet
With a straight face that would suggest they had the authority to do so, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to steal the Internet after new rules are introduced on Dec. 20, by simply declaring it has the right to regulate it. Their logic? The left will assure you their reasoning has nothing to do with the fact that more people today get their news from unvetted alternate news sources on the Net than they do from the liberal mainstream media. The problem? Internet journalists tend to reports the news without coloring it with the communist red brush of political correctness.With Sen. Jay Rockefeller's cyberspace strangulation bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, still hung up in Committee, and not likely to find its way out before Jan. 3, 2011, the far left sees little hope of it passing any time soon. Particularly since the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate. Even badly outnumbered in the Senate, the GOP can once again exercise the right of the filibuster to block any piece of legislation they don't want to reach the floor. Implementing legislation that has neither cleared the obstacles in Committee nor a floor vote may be rare, but in their zeal to "protect the people," the social progressive zealots in the bureaucracy are not adverse to writing the rules and regulations of bills that were never enacted if they believe they are needed—even when they fall into a legislative black hole in committee.
One such "law" was the Health Claims Act, which was proposed as a rider to Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. A health claim is a statement in a printed advertisement, or an oral statement made at the point of sale, that a food or substance can be used to prevent, treat or mitigate a medical condition. In 1990, the FDA published the regulations and guidelines to implement the Health Claims Act that was stripped from the Nutrition Labeling legislation before it was signed into law,. Shortly thereafter FDA agents visited 57-year old Sissy Harrington-McGill's pet store—without a search warrant as required by the 4th Amendment—and ransacked it, looking for vendor brochures Harrington-McGill gave to several of her customers advising them that regularly giving their pets vitamins would keep them healthy. Finding the damning evidence, they arrested her. When her day in court arrived, Harrington-McGill discovered the federal judge intended to dispose of the case immediately. When Harrington-McGill demanded her 7th Amendment right to a jury trial, the federal magistrate denied her request although the 7th Amendment gives the accused the right to a jury trial where the value of the controversy exceeds $20. (The FDA seized the entire inventory of Harrington-McGill's business. On top of that, the fine she faced under the never-enacted Health Claims Act was $10,000.). She was sentenced to 179 days in jail and fined $10 thousand, adding the color of legitimacy to the FDA's seizure and disposal of her property. One hundred-fourteen days later, the judge was forced to free her from jail for violating a law that did not exist. Even though her constitutional rights were violated by the FDA and their accomplice, the federal magistrate that railroaded her for violating a nonexistent law, the FDA succeeded in doing what they set out to do—intimidate small business owners for extolling the virtues of health supplements. Now, it appears the FCC has picked up the gauntlet and will attempt to implement Rockefeller's failed Cybersecurity Act of 2009 by decree.
The Obama Administration blames the Tea Party Revolution on the American conservatives' unfettered access to the Internet. That appears to be the real reason the Administration authorized The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to regulate the Internet. The excuse given by the FCC—one of the reasons in FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's draft document of his proposed regulations for regulating the Internet, complete with over 550 footnotes—and an official FCC stamp that says "Nonpublic. For internal use only" to assure that no one outside the FCC sees it until the rules are approved on Dec. 21. This will be Barack Obama's "Christmas Surprise" for the American people.
The reason regulations are needed? Genachowski is prepared to answer this one with "a straight face," as well. It reminds me of Franklin D. Roosevelt when he proposed the Communications Act of 1933. FDR was concerned, he said, because newspapers lie about their circulation.
On Wed., Dec. 1, Genachowski announced to the media that he had circulated his draft rules memo. He said it will "...preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," adding that the federal government will increase the freedom of online services because, he noted, heavy use in some areas of the Internet slow the "web experience" for everyone sharing the same information superhighway lines. The example he cited was people watching movies that consume too much bandwidth. (In point of fact, the only computers affected by the "web experience" of someone watching a Netflix movie are the other computers hooked up to the same Internet feed—in that home or business. What Genachowski and Obama are doing is "playing Roosevelt."
In 1933, Roosevelt used whatever excuse his Brain Trust could muster to seize control of the fourth estate. Once the newspaper industry was under his thumb, Roosevelt knew he could control them by forcing every newspaper in America to apply for, and be granted a license, to operate.
Licensing the fourth estate would give the White House the power of life and death over every newspaper in America. When any newspaper crossed the proverbial line and spoke out against his policies, he could pull their license and shut them down. Or, just the fear of having their license suspended, or not renewed, would force them to toe the line he had already drawn in the sand. In the end, Roosevelt's coup d' etat of the newspaper industry was defeated by Sen. Thomas Schall [R-MN] who argued (in a very public newspaper op ed war with FDR) that because newspapers are protected by the 1st Amendment, Roosevelt could not regulate them. In the end, when the gutted Communications Act of 1933 was signed into law, FDR was allowed to regulate radio and, a few years later, television—since they were not construed by Pennsylvania Avenue lawyers to be "the press." And while he won the battle, Schall lost war. A constant thorn in FDR's side, Schall, who was legally blind, was struck by a hit-and-run driver while walking across a busy street in Cottage City, Maryland on Dec. 19, 1935. He died three days later on Dec. 22.
The same legislation that differentiated between newspaper and radio by erasing 1st Amendment protection for the newly developed electronic media that did not exist in 1787 also created the FCC and put it "in charge" keeping the fourth estate in check.
Although the federal judiciary has extended 1st Amendment protection to the Internet (May 27.2006), Barack Hussein Obama believes he has the executive authority, without legislation enacted by Congress, to arbitrarily regulate who uses cyberspace and what access they may enjoy based entirely on the content of the material they wish to publish there.
In American Civil Liberties Union v Reno, a panel of federal judges ruled that that the Internet is a "...publishing medium [in which]...personal home pages are the equivalent of individualized newsletters about that person or organization." (929 F. Supp at 837). The judges concluded that the Internet deserves at least as much protection under the 1st Amendment as printed matter receives. The appellate court judges emphasized that any analysis of the 1st Amendment protections afforded to a particular medium of mass communications must focus on the underlying technology that brings the information to the user. Thus, they concluded, the Supreme Court's two primary theories for government regulation of any form of broadcast communications content—NBC v United States (319 US 190[1943]) and FCC v Pacific Foundation (438 US 726 [1978]) do not justify government regulation of the Internet.
Which, of course, is why Jay Rockefeller's Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is still suspended in limbo. And, that also explains why Obama will use the FCC plans to implement control of cyberspace by fiat. Obama insists he has that right, and that he can regulate the Internet through the FCC—which regulates the other electronic mediums: radio and television. What Obama really means is that as long as the American people have unfettered access to the Internet, he will be a one-term visitor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Monday, December 20, 2010
savethemales.ca - The Many (illuminati) Faces of Communism
The Many (illuminati) Faces of Communism
December 19, 2010
by Rollin Stearns
(for henrymakow.com)Thanks to the research of persons like Anthony Sutton ("Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution") we now know that the international bankers -- the Illuminati -- financed Communism.
They did so to create a dialectic, a state of opposing forces they could manipulate to advance their own control over the world.
But there's a question that is still unanswered. What is the end game of the Illuminati? Are they Communists? To answer this, let's look at who the Communists are.
THE MARXIST-LENNINISTS
Communists have many faces -- and facades. The Marxist-Leninists are just one kind, and they were bitterly divided between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites.
In America, the Stalinists were represented by leaders such as William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America." In the '30s and '40s he preached social revolution (e.g., women's liberation, no-fault divorce, abortion), but said this would come after an armed revolution by the working class.
The Trotskyites were revolutionaries too, but they hated Stalin. They thought he had betrayed the revolution by working to secure the Soviet Union. They wanted a "permanent revolution" free from any national compromises. (Think of the difference between Castro and Che Guevara.)
FABIAN SOCIALISTS
In addition to the Marxist-Leninists, there are the Fabian Socialists. Contrary to popular view, they are not just reformers content with a welfare state.
George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society, wrote that the purpose of the welfare state was to bankrupt society, leading to economic collapse. This in turn would lead to Communism. These days it looks as if Shaw knew what he was talking about.
Today, most "Stalinists" or "Trotskyites" have morphed and adopted new labels.
It's estimated that 20 percent of Congress are "progressives," a code word for neo-Stalinists. They dominate the Democratic part. They occupy the White House.
The Trotskyites on the other hand are now "neoconservatives," and their chosen vehicle is the Republican party.
As for "liberals" (Democrats) and "moderates" (Republicans), they are Fabian socialists. Most of them may not be as cynical as Shaw, but what does it matter? They're on board.
GRAMSCI, ALINSKY, FANON
Antonio Gramsci co-founded the Italian Communist part in the 1920s. His ideas were largely rejected at the time, but today his influence is great. He turned the model that William Z. Foster used on its head.
Instead of working to overthrow the economic "foundation" of society and then change the social and cultural "super-structure," he argued that the cultural level (values, morals, etc.) should be subverted first. The rest would then fall into the Communists' hands "like an overripe fruit."
This view influenced a whole generation of student radicals in the 1960s. Bill Clinton, for example, always maintained close ties to the "Euro-Communist" party in Italy.
Hillary, on the other hand, was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, the community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals."
He was not a member of the Communist party (the large majority of Communists are not), but he had the same goals: abolition of private property, the total transformation of society, and the total empowerment of the state to carry this out.
Today, of course, the best known disciple of Alinsky is not Hillary but Barack Obama. And no doubt Obama is also influenced by another figure from the '60s: Frantz Fanon.
Author of "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon was a "French" (from Martinique) radical. Driven by racial hatred, he saw revolutionary violence as cathartic, a means by which the non-white world could not only gain its independence, but redeem its soul from the humiliations it had suffered.
Today there is a working synthesis of all these influences. The old internecine rivalries are muted. Depending on circumstances, and where one is positioned, one can choose an appropriate model or mix them. A "liberal" today, a revolutionary tomorrow. Or vice versa.
WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI?
The Illuminati -- the Judeo-Masonic international bankers and their minions (e.g. Fearless Fosdyke) -- not only promote Communism, they share its goals.
They believe in the degradation of culture, the abolition of private property, the reduction of the world's peoples to a state of equality (serfdom), and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the state (controlled by themselves).
Communism may be defined in practice as state capitalism. The state owns everything and claims to do so in the name of "the people." Of course, the state is supposed to one day "wither away." But it can't and won't, because the communist state is a blind behind which the Illuminati bankers control all wealth and power.
So are the Illuminati communists? Yes, they are, in the sense that they are willing to have the communists take power and to rule through them. But they are not committed to that. They ride all horses, or almost all.
The Illuminati support any movement that promises to advance the New World Order, in which all wealth and power will be concentrated in a global state. By the same token, they support any movement that promises to destroy the values, morals, and faiths that stand in the way.
As a result, they support fascism too. After all, fascism is a variant of socialism. Mussolini allowed private property to exist, but only under the control of the state. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
What does it matter if you "own" your property if it can be taken away by eminent domain, or because of property taxes, or cannot be used because of environmental regulations?
Mussolini, like Lenin, was a member of the Second International. Roosevelt's New Deal was modeled on Mussolini's policies. And just as Obama is a racial (anti-white) socialist, so Hitler was a racial (anti-Jewish) socialist.
It doesn't matter who's put into power; they're all puppets (or are meant to be). The Illuminati operate from a higher level, above labels and ideology. The issue of communism or fascism is secondary.
As Wilhelm Reich observed: Politically mankind moves from right to left and left to right, like a man shifting from one foot to another -- but never a step forward!
CONCLUSION
As Fosdyke says, we should not fear. The Illuminati are not as powerful as they'd like us to believe. Their power rests on two pillars: 1) indirect control through a usurious (and "mysterious") financial system, and 2) deception through control of mass propaganda.
These pillars are inherently vulnerable, as were the pillars that Samson was chained to. They and the temple they support can be destroyed by power applied directly and deliberately.
To put it in terms of another Biblical image: "Mystery" Babylon will be destroyed by the beast she rides. And this beast will be destroyed as well. The Illuminati's doom is sure. One little word will fell them.
--
Rollin Stearns is a former book editor who lives in Maine.
How Germany’s weather team views the “hottest year ever”
How Germany’s weather team views the “hottest year ever”
Translation via the GWPF
Speculation Alert: “New Little Ice Age Cannot Be Ruled Out”
Wednesday, 15 December 2010 09:16 Rickmer Flor, wetter.infoEverybody is talking about global warming – but in Germany and also in many other countries around the world people are currently fighting with the adversities of extreme cold. And indeed: “The year 2010 will be the coldest for ten years in Germany,” said Thomas Globig from the weather service Meteo Media talking to wetter.info . And it might even get worse: “It is quite possible that we are at the beginning of a Little Ice Age,” the meteorologist said. Even the Arctic ice could spread further to the south.deviations from the climate mean for December, until 17.12.2010, Source: Bernd-Hussing.de -click
It is already clear: the average temperatures in Germany this year (8.1 degrees Celsius) were 0.2 degrees below the long term measured average of 8.3 degrees. “I fear we will end up still significantly lower by the end of the year”, said Globig. The long-term average is actually the average of all German stations from 1961 to 1990.
Coldest December in 100 years
In Berlin, there was an absolute cold record in early December, “For 100 years it had not been as cold as in the first decade of December,” said Globig. This also applied to other regions. But why is it so cold just now? Might it have anything to do with climate change? “I’m very sceptical”, replied Globig. A few years ago when we had a period of mild winters many climate scientists warned that winter sport in Germany’s low mountain ranges would soon no longer be possible anymore because of global warming. “Now they are saying: the cold winters are a consequence of global warming – a questionable implication,” according to Globig.
“Unbelievable amounts of snow” in Berlin (AW note: 800 flights grounded in EU)
Globig appeals to our long-term memory – and recalls a prolonged period of extremely cold and snowy winter in the 1960s and 1970s. Half a meter of snow fell in Berlin in early March 1970, in Potsdam even 70 centimetres. “From today’s perspective, these amounts were unbelievable.”
Then followed a period of milder years, and, probably the impression spread that there will be no more real winters in Germany”, said Globig. “That was a misjudgment.” People became careless, and as a result the authorities run out of grit in a very short time last winter and this year the airport operators lacked de-icing fluid for airplanes. In the Berlin the S-Bahn traffic came to a halt because of the cold and the high-speed trains did not run either. “Our modern, high-tech world was completely overwhelmed with the winter situation” said Globig.
Even the last winter was extremely hard
Many had succumbed to the delusion that the usually mild winters of the past ten years would continue. But already the winter 2009/2010 – with its long periods of frost and snow well into spring – was an eye-opening event for many. “This eye-opening experience could be even bigger this year,” predicts Globig.
Globig sees two main causes for the significant cooling: First, the cyclical changes in the big air currents over the Atlantic, and second, the variations in solar activity.
“Everyone has heard about the high over the Azores and the low over Iceland,” said Globig. The most important question for weather forecasts for many years was: “What are the air pressure differences between the two regions, how stormy will it be – and how much mild air is being shovelled sequentially from the Atlantic to Europe?”
“Both pressure areas do not exist right now,” explains Globig. On the contrary, over the Azores there is lower air pressure and a high over Iceland. “The weather over the Atlantic is upside down,” said Globig. Now cold air from the polar region has lots of space to flow to Europe – and that is what is happening.
“Normal” fluctuations with large currents
“These changes in the so-called ‘Atlantic Oscillation’ are totally normal – just hard to predict in detail,” explains Globig. The storm “Kyrill” in 2007 was the peak of the flow activity from the Atlantic to Europe. “Since then it has grown quiet over the sea,” the meteorologist said. The lows over the Atlantic have become weaker and weaker.
This effect has taken place in previous years, but at irregular intervals. Science does not yet know much about it, says Globig, „but here lies the key to a better understanding of the seasons”.
The low temperatures could very well go on a few years, maybe decades. Even more icy cold could be possible. „It has happened before, and can be explained with natural climate variability,” said Globig. We could even be at the beginning of a Little Ice Age, “the probability is at least given.”
This is also supported by the current development of solar activity. Solar activity has passed the zenith of a nearly 200 years continuing phase of high activity and will decline in coming decades. Around the years 2040/2050, scientists expect a new so-called solar minimum, with very little supply of solar energy into the Earth’s atmosphere.
Spread of the Arctic ice?
“I think it is even conceivable that the Arctic ice spreads significantly in the years to come,” said Globig. The impact of solar activity on climate has been criminally underestimated for a long time.
The last two weeks have been the coldest in England since the second-to-last solar minimum, many hundreds of years ago. “What actually will happen depends on the next five to ten years,” believes Globig. But one thing now appears to be very likely for the weather expert, “We will have to abandon some climate forecasts. “
Obama's uses executive order to take over internet
Obama's uses executive order to take over internet
Posted By: SharryEdwards Send E-Mail>
Date: Sunday, 19-Dec-2010 17:36:57
Barack Obama has a "Christmas surprise" for the American people. It's based upon the FCC's self-imposed December 21 deadline to implement new Internet rules.
Via the FCC, Mr. Obama wants to take control of the Internet---YOUR Internet---your ability to contact your friends, your relatives, and your elected representatives in government.
This "stealth" use of new rules and regulations will sneak up on us just before Christmas. Quite frankly, not too many people know about this; or really take the notion seriously, because, after all, we have the 1st Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to protect us. Right? Wrong!
The FCC is ready to add the Internet to its "portfolio" of regulated industries. The Obama Administration wants to take control of the Internet. BEFORE CHRISTMAS! (even though the regulations won't "officially" go into effect until after the holidays. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he has circulated "draft rules" that he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement---I call it a bald face lie---reflects the vast gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama Administration policy.
Obama's FCC is ready to steal our Internet freedom by simply declaring it has the "right" to regulate it. Here's the underlying problem for Barack Obama. Internet journalists tend to report the news without coloring it with the brush of "political correctness." They challenge the lies that the Obama Administration puts out that the so-called "mainstream media" simply accept and repeat as the truth.
Congress needs to exercise their Constitutional authority and oversight over the FCC, by insisting that the FCC postpone the implementation of these new regulations until proper Congressional Committee hearings are held to determine whether the Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to take over the Internet. Three federal judges in three different cases have already ruled that the Internet deserves the same protection under the First Amendment as printed material receives. We must not let the federal government continue to whittle away at our Constitutional freedoms!
We must be prepared to do battle with the intrusive FCC federal regulations that will clamp down on our 1st Amendment rights via the Internet. To protect our free speech rights on the Internet, we must contact every single Member of Congress and let them know they must NOT agree to the upcoming December 21st regulations! Will you do that for yourself and for the rest of us... today---please? This is so important; let me repeat my request so you understand the extreme urgency. Because, historically, when government seizes liberty, it's gone forever.
According to the Washington Times: "With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the 'freedom' of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped 'non-public, for internal use only' to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled December 21 vote. So much for 'openness'!
Mr. Obama will use the FCC plans to implement control of cyberspace by issuing regulations. He blatantly insists that he has the right to regulate the Internet through the FCC---which regulates the other electronic mediums: radio and television. What Mr. Obama really means is that as long as the American people have unfettered access to the Internet, he cannot continue to spread his propaganda and bald face lies without being challenged, and he will be a one-term visitor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Make no mistake; Barack Hussein Obama is very determined to undermine free speech by seizing cyber-control Internet free speech; under the disguise of making sure our safety and security are of prime importance. The recent WikiLeaks fiasco has helped him to rationalize this tremendous increase of government control to the American public.
Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's December 21 proposals should be STOPPED by Members of Congress. In fact, both the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives should make it even clearer that the FCC should STOP trying to expand its REGULATORY EMPIRE and should STOP trying to control our freedom of speech over the internet!
In the administration's zeal to "protect the people," the social progressive zealots in the Obama federal bureaucracy are not averse to writing the rules and regulations like this. It makes a clear statement. It takes away our freedoms on the Internet; but it is all under the claim of "protection."
That's why the proposed FCC Internet rules and regulations---THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE IMPLEMENTED without Congressional legislation being enacted---must be stopped by that Body whose legislative authority has been abridged.Don't let the Obama Administration give you a government "Merry Christmas" via Internet controls. Send Barack Obama your personal "BAH, HUMBUG!"
Say "Merry Christmas" with a message that STOPS the federal government from crossing that Constitutional line by seizing the Internet. Barrack Hussein Obama blames the Tea Party Revolution, and the results of the 2010 election, on the American conservatives' unfettered access to the Internet. That appears to be the real reason that the Obama Administration authorized the FCC power grab to regulate the Internet. Obama talking heads might refer to regulation as a form of "Net Neutrality," or a cyber-version of the "Fairness Doctrine." But, plain and simple, it is plain, old fashioned, censorship of the views of a majority by a frightened minority who want to silence that majority.
Are you part of the no-longer "silent" majority which believes that the 1st Amendment protects our right to speak our mind, in the public forum of the Internet, or at a Town Hall meeting? Free speech is free. Don't let anyone regulate your right to speak. Get involved. Now. Today.
When it comes to the Internet, bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a strict hands-off policy whenever the left has proposed legislation to impose censorship through regulation. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April, by striking down the FCC's last attempt to do it. In order for the FCC to take this control, it needs Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so. Since they have chosen not to, Mr. Obama intends to just do it himself. The Obama Administration is overstepping its Constitutional boundaries? These proposed regulations prove that!
December 21 is only days away.Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Federal judges have ruled specifically that the Internet has the exact same freedoms. But the Obama Administration is trying to control the Internet... and YOU!
On December 1, with an impending implementation on December 21st, Mr. Genachowski announced to the media that he had circulated his draft rules memo. He said it will "... preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," adding that the federal government will increase the freedom of online services because, he noted, heavy use in some areas of the Internet slow the "web experience" for everyone sharing the same information superhighway lines.
Even though that may be partially true, the United States government should not dictate to us what we can and cannot do on the Internet. Period.
Although the federal judiciary has extended First Amendment protection to the Internet, Barack Obama believes that he has the executive authority, WITHOUT legislation enacted by Congress, to arbitrarily regulate who uses cyberspace and what access they may enjoy, based entirely on the content of the material that they wish to publish there. If this isn't a violation of our basic rights as Americans, I do not know what is!