Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence
Bob Barr
May 28, 2010
Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?
Friday, May 28, 2010
BILDERBERG: Global cabal 224
BILDERBERG: Global cabal 224
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
Bilderberg-controlled news outlets in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are conditioning the public to accept two of the super-secret elite’s major goals in advance of its meeting June 4-7 in Sitges, Spain: a U.S. attack on Iran and a financial bailout of Greece and other European Union (EU) countries.
But even before the Bilderberg group gathered behind the sealed-off, guarded Dolce Hotel in Sitges, a resort community 12 miles from Barcelona, resistance to throwing more tax dollars at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out Europe sprang up in Congress.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation to require the Treasury Department to oppose further IMF “loans” to stricken European countries until all EU members are in compliance with their own constitutional limits on debt—and very few of them are. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Just the threat of the legislation prompted Senate Democratic leaders to agree to an amendment to financial legislation that would prohibit the United States from participating in bailouts that are unlikely to be repaid. It requires the IMF to certify to the Treasury Department that it expects its loans to Europe to be repaid. It passed 94-0.
“America isn’t even close to getting our own fiscal house in order, and this is the worst time to ask taxpayers to borrow more from China to bail out foreign nations,” DeMint said.
The Bilderberg-controlled Washington Post called for making the IMF a “global overseer” on May 20. Bilderberg is exploiting the financial crisis in Greece and other EU countries to advance efforts to make the IMF a world Treasury Department under the UN.
“It may take a global agency like the IMF” to address the problem, The Post said, attributing the view to Liliana Rojas-Suarez, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.
Bilderberg warmongering continues. Following instructions from Russian Mikhail Slobodinsky (at the Trilateralist meeting [AFP May 24, 2010]), Russia and China joined in supporting a resolution condemning Iran’s imaginary “nuclear weapons program.” Israel restated that air strikes are not “off the table.”
The Bilderberg-Trilateral goal is for the U.S. to conduct air strikes on Iran, paid for with American taxpayer dollars and blood. Israel has had nuclear weapons since at least 1962, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refuses on-site inspections.
Obama continued calling for a new “international order” in a commencement address at West Point, addressing cadets, some of whom will probably die in the Middle East.
“The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,” Obama said. The president, who is owned by Bilderberg, never wore America’s uniform.
“We are not defined by our borders,” Obama said while standing beside Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Eliminating national borders and creating an “American Union” to include Mexico and Canada is a major Bilderberg goal.
Bilderberg is grimly aware that gas prices will drop this summer despite ordering oil-producing nations to pump at only 81 percent capacity. But Bilderberg is demanding significantly higher costs in the fall, looking for $3 to $4 a gallon in the U.S. This is entangled, too, with the huge British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is among the several oil producers that are major Bilderberg players, and the brotherhood is intact—and embarrassed.
By James P. Tucker, Jr.
Bilderberg-controlled news outlets in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are conditioning the public to accept two of the super-secret elite’s major goals in advance of its meeting June 4-7 in Sitges, Spain: a U.S. attack on Iran and a financial bailout of Greece and other European Union (EU) countries.
But even before the Bilderberg group gathered behind the sealed-off, guarded Dolce Hotel in Sitges, a resort community 12 miles from Barcelona, resistance to throwing more tax dollars at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out Europe sprang up in Congress.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation to require the Treasury Department to oppose further IMF “loans” to stricken European countries until all EU members are in compliance with their own constitutional limits on debt—and very few of them are. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Just the threat of the legislation prompted Senate Democratic leaders to agree to an amendment to financial legislation that would prohibit the United States from participating in bailouts that are unlikely to be repaid. It requires the IMF to certify to the Treasury Department that it expects its loans to Europe to be repaid. It passed 94-0.
“America isn’t even close to getting our own fiscal house in order, and this is the worst time to ask taxpayers to borrow more from China to bail out foreign nations,” DeMint said.
The Bilderberg-controlled Washington Post called for making the IMF a “global overseer” on May 20. Bilderberg is exploiting the financial crisis in Greece and other EU countries to advance efforts to make the IMF a world Treasury Department under the UN.
“It may take a global agency like the IMF” to address the problem, The Post said, attributing the view to Liliana Rojas-Suarez, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.
Bilderberg warmongering continues. Following instructions from Russian Mikhail Slobodinsky (at the Trilateralist meeting [AFP May 24, 2010]), Russia and China joined in supporting a resolution condemning Iran’s imaginary “nuclear weapons program.” Israel restated that air strikes are not “off the table.”
The Bilderberg-Trilateral goal is for the U.S. to conduct air strikes on Iran, paid for with American taxpayer dollars and blood. Israel has had nuclear weapons since at least 1962, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and refuses on-site inspections.
Obama continued calling for a new “international order” in a commencement address at West Point, addressing cadets, some of whom will probably die in the Middle East.
“The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,” Obama said. The president, who is owned by Bilderberg, never wore America’s uniform.
“We are not defined by our borders,” Obama said while standing beside Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Eliminating national borders and creating an “American Union” to include Mexico and Canada is a major Bilderberg goal.
Bilderberg is grimly aware that gas prices will drop this summer despite ordering oil-producing nations to pump at only 81 percent capacity. But Bilderberg is demanding significantly higher costs in the fall, looking for $3 to $4 a gallon in the U.S. This is entangled, too, with the huge British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is among the several oil producers that are major Bilderberg players, and the brotherhood is intact—and embarrassed.
Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology
Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology
(NaturalNews) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a reputation for funding technologies designed to roll out mass sterilization and vaccination programs around the world. One of the programs recently funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It might accurately be called a "temporary castration" technology. Read more about it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028853_u...
Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines."
The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research.
These are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the "Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global health."
...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle vaccines that could be covertly administered even without your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example. Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being vaccinated.
This technology is potentially very dangerous to your health freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies (which are all the same thing these days) could create a vaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as "sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actually vaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrow underneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNA inside your body.
A history of covert mass medication
But why would the government medicate people without their knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regional and national governments all over the world are using the water supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to people whether they need it or not -- and without any proper medical diagnosis or prescription.
So if governments are already covertly medicating people with fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stage mass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such as the air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, this nanotechnology needed to pull this off is now being funded.
Is this really a "major breakthrough in global health?"
I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where you dose people with drugs or vaccines without their knowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rational people that it can't even operate out in the open. That's why it resorts to covert contamination of the water supply in order to force the public to swallow its drugs.
Fluoride and covert medicine
Oh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not a drug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemical substance that has a biological effect on the human body is, by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too.
Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claims about "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an "unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is it that this unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supply and forced upon hundreds of millions of people without a single diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a single prescription from a doctor?
The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that it does not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations or laws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs are shoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into the water supply without your consent. So why should we believe vaccines will be any different? If mainstream medicine can find a way to force every person to unknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistake they will pursue it!
And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financial support of Bill Gates.
Sources for this story include:
The Daily Tell: http://www.thedailytell.com/2010/05...
Puget Sound Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/...
(NaturalNews) The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a reputation for funding technologies designed to roll out mass sterilization and vaccination programs around the world. One of the programs recently funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It might accurately be called a "temporary castration" technology. Read more about it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028853_u...
Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines."
The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research.
These are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the "Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global health."
...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle vaccines that could be covertly administered even without your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example. Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being vaccinated.
This technology is potentially very dangerous to your health freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies (which are all the same thing these days) could create a vaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as "sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actually vaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrow underneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNA inside your body.
A history of covert mass medication
But why would the government medicate people without their knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regional and national governments all over the world are using the water supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to people whether they need it or not -- and without any proper medical diagnosis or prescription.
So if governments are already covertly medicating people with fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stage mass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such as the air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, this nanotechnology needed to pull this off is now being funded.
Is this really a "major breakthrough in global health?"
I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where you dose people with drugs or vaccines without their knowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rational people that it can't even operate out in the open. That's why it resorts to covert contamination of the water supply in order to force the public to swallow its drugs.
Fluoride and covert medicine
Oh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not a drug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemical substance that has a biological effect on the human body is, by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too.
Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claims about "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an "unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is it that this unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supply and forced upon hundreds of millions of people without a single diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a single prescription from a doctor?
The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that it does not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations or laws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs are shoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into the water supply without your consent. So why should we believe vaccines will be any different? If mainstream medicine can find a way to force every person to unknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistake they will pursue it!
And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financial support of Bill Gates.
Sources for this story include:
The Daily Tell: http://www.thedailytell.com/2010/05...
Puget Sound Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/...
Thursday, May 27, 2010
MARIA - Fight the NWO's MySpace Blog | DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. T
MARIA - Fight the NWO's MySpace Blog | DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. T
GOP: U.S. can’t afford to fund health ‘entitlement program’ for 9/11 rescue workers
Michael Mcauliff
NY Daily News
May 27, 2010
WASHINGTON – Republicans argued Tuesday that it would put the nation’s finances at risk if Congress gave aiing Sept. 11 responders a permanent, guaranteed program to ensure they get health care.
Calling the Sept. 11 Health and Compensation Act a new “entitlement program” like Medicare, GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee argued the nation already has too much that it must pay for. They said obligating the feds for lifetime care of tens of thousands of 9/11 responders was too much of a burden.
“By making this a new mandatory program, you jeopardize the financial health of the United States of America,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).
And they argued that the heroes of Sept. 11, 2001, were already being cared for, noting the $150 million the Obama recently requested for this year.
And they argued that the heroes of Sept. 11, 2001, were already being cared for, noting the $150 million the Obama recently requested for this year.
http://www.infowars.com/gop-u-s-cant-afford-to-fund-health-entitlement-program-for-911-rescue-workers/
BUT YET............>>>>>>>
Despite Soaring National Debt, Congress Goes on Spending Spree
FOXNews.com
May 26, 2010
As the national debt clock ticked past the ignominious $13 trillion mark overnight, Congress pressed to pass a host of supplemental spending bills to, among other things, fund the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ramp up security on the U.S.-Mexico border and prevent teacher layoffs.
Taken together, the Democratic-led U.S. Congress is trying to find a way to pass about $300 billion more in unfunded spending before Memorial Day — a spending spree that rivals anything drunken sailors have been accused of.
The debt-fueled spending would only add to the $13 trillion national debt, which breaks down to $42,000 for the average American.
The spending spree comes three months after President Obama lifted the cap on the amount of money the U.S. can borrow from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion to keep the nation from going into default.
But another intervention may be needed since the administration has projected a $1.56 trillion deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 -- a figure likely to grow in the wake of the current spending spree.
The underlying war funding measure that congressional leaders hope to pass by the end of the week would bring the amount provided by Congress for the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts to $1 trillion.
But lawmakers in both parties are using Obama's war funding request to advance unrelated pet initiatives like a $500 million administration request for border security and an Education Department request for a $23 billion teacher bailout.
In the House, Obama's original $63 billion request for war funding, disaster relief and aid to nations like earthquake-ravaged Haiti and war-torn Afghanistan has swelled under a draft measure being readied for a key panel vote on Thursday.
Democrats such as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., are pushing $23 billion to help school districts avoid teacher layoffs, along with $6 billion to make up for a funding shortfall in Pell grants for low-income college students and lesser amounts to hire border patrol agents and help Mexico fight drug cartels.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are using a sleaker $58.8 billion version of Obama's war funding bill to try to add billions of dollars to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Since the war funding measure is the only appropriations bill likely to pass before fall, it's being eyed by lawmakers in both parties seeking to deal now with violence along the southern border, the Gulf oil spill disaster and a variety of domestic programs. But the pressure for more spending is running into resistance from lawmakers worried about out-of-control deficits and Congress' reputation for extravagant spending.
"Ninety-eight percent of this bill doesn't meet the requirements of being an emergency designation," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are offering amendments to pay for the war funding bill.
Coburn said the bill is being described as an "emergency" to use the federal credit card rather than finding a way to budget for the expenses.
"We are going to borrow it from the children of the people who are in Afghanistan and Iraq who are fighting this war," he said."We can always rationalize away the ability to make hard choices. That is what we are doing."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may not allow any votes on amendments in his quest to get the measure passed before the Memorial Day recess. Coburn says he intends to keep up his filibuster, and calls Reid an "obstructionist" for not allowing votes on amendments -- a label often used by Reid and other Democrats for Republicans.
The Senate measure, currently being debated on the floor, blends about $30 billion for Obama's 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan with more than $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief, and a down payment on aid to flood-drenched Tennessee and Rhode Island.
Because of the need to attract GOP votes, Democrats have kept the Senate bill fairly "clean," at least as emergency spending bills go. The measure comes in under Obama's requests and won unanimous support from the Appropriations panel this month.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is just one of several Republicans seeking to add money for border security. He's offered a $2 billion amendment to award grants to state and local law enforcement agencies, provide new unmanned surveillance aircraft, and hire hundreds of immigration and border agents, among other steps.
McCain offered an amendment to provide $250 million to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border.
Democrats will consider countering with a proposal of their own in the wake of a White House announcement that Obama would seek $500 million to send 1,200 guardsmen to the border and take other border security steps.
Lawmakers also have loaded up a separate bill that originally was intended to extend expired tax breaks and provide expanded unemployment benefits through the end of the year. The bill has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day.
The bill includes $1 billion for summer jobs programs, $1.5 billion in aid to farmers who had crops damaged by natural disasters and $4.6 billion to settle two long-running lawsuits against the government, one by black farmers claiming discrimination and one by American Indians over the government's management of their land.
In all, the bill would add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit, drawing opposition from Republicans and some Democrats. House leaders said Tuesday they were determined to pass the bill this week to avoid allowing jobless benefits to expire for thousands of people.
But the measure has been delayed while House leaders round up support, which could mean the Senate might have too little time to act before next week's Memorial Day recess.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
GOP: U.S. can’t afford to fund health ‘entitlement program’ for 9/11 rescue workers
Michael Mcauliff
NY Daily News
May 27, 2010
WASHINGTON – Republicans argued Tuesday that it would put the nation’s finances at risk if Congress gave aiing Sept. 11 responders a permanent, guaranteed program to ensure they get health care.
Calling the Sept. 11 Health and Compensation Act a new “entitlement program” like Medicare, GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee argued the nation already has too much that it must pay for. They said obligating the feds for lifetime care of tens of thousands of 9/11 responders was too much of a burden.
“By making this a new mandatory program, you jeopardize the financial health of the United States of America,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).
And they argued that the heroes of Sept. 11, 2001, were already being cared for, noting the $150 million the Obama recently requested for this year.
And they argued that the heroes of Sept. 11, 2001, were already being cared for, noting the $150 million the Obama recently requested for this year.
http://www.infowars.com/gop-u-s-cant-afford-to-fund-health-entitlement-program-for-911-rescue-workers/
BUT YET............>>>>>>>
Despite Soaring National Debt, Congress Goes on Spending Spree
FOXNews.com
May 26, 2010
As the national debt clock ticked past the ignominious $13 trillion mark overnight, Congress pressed to pass a host of supplemental spending bills to, among other things, fund the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ramp up security on the U.S.-Mexico border and prevent teacher layoffs.
Taken together, the Democratic-led U.S. Congress is trying to find a way to pass about $300 billion more in unfunded spending before Memorial Day — a spending spree that rivals anything drunken sailors have been accused of.
The debt-fueled spending would only add to the $13 trillion national debt, which breaks down to $42,000 for the average American.
The spending spree comes three months after President Obama lifted the cap on the amount of money the U.S. can borrow from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion to keep the nation from going into default.
But another intervention may be needed since the administration has projected a $1.56 trillion deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 -- a figure likely to grow in the wake of the current spending spree.
The underlying war funding measure that congressional leaders hope to pass by the end of the week would bring the amount provided by Congress for the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts to $1 trillion.
But lawmakers in both parties are using Obama's war funding request to advance unrelated pet initiatives like a $500 million administration request for border security and an Education Department request for a $23 billion teacher bailout.
In the House, Obama's original $63 billion request for war funding, disaster relief and aid to nations like earthquake-ravaged Haiti and war-torn Afghanistan has swelled under a draft measure being readied for a key panel vote on Thursday.
Democrats such as House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., are pushing $23 billion to help school districts avoid teacher layoffs, along with $6 billion to make up for a funding shortfall in Pell grants for low-income college students and lesser amounts to hire border patrol agents and help Mexico fight drug cartels.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are using a sleaker $58.8 billion version of Obama's war funding bill to try to add billions of dollars to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Since the war funding measure is the only appropriations bill likely to pass before fall, it's being eyed by lawmakers in both parties seeking to deal now with violence along the southern border, the Gulf oil spill disaster and a variety of domestic programs. But the pressure for more spending is running into resistance from lawmakers worried about out-of-control deficits and Congress' reputation for extravagant spending.
"Ninety-eight percent of this bill doesn't meet the requirements of being an emergency designation," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are offering amendments to pay for the war funding bill.
Coburn said the bill is being described as an "emergency" to use the federal credit card rather than finding a way to budget for the expenses.
"We are going to borrow it from the children of the people who are in Afghanistan and Iraq who are fighting this war," he said."We can always rationalize away the ability to make hard choices. That is what we are doing."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may not allow any votes on amendments in his quest to get the measure passed before the Memorial Day recess. Coburn says he intends to keep up his filibuster, and calls Reid an "obstructionist" for not allowing votes on amendments -- a label often used by Reid and other Democrats for Republicans.
The Senate measure, currently being debated on the floor, blends about $30 billion for Obama's 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan with more than $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, as well as funding for Haitian earthquake relief, and a down payment on aid to flood-drenched Tennessee and Rhode Island.
Because of the need to attract GOP votes, Democrats have kept the Senate bill fairly "clean," at least as emergency spending bills go. The measure comes in under Obama's requests and won unanimous support from the Appropriations panel this month.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is just one of several Republicans seeking to add money for border security. He's offered a $2 billion amendment to award grants to state and local law enforcement agencies, provide new unmanned surveillance aircraft, and hire hundreds of immigration and border agents, among other steps.
McCain offered an amendment to provide $250 million to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border.
Democrats will consider countering with a proposal of their own in the wake of a White House announcement that Obama would seek $500 million to send 1,200 guardsmen to the border and take other border security steps.
Lawmakers also have loaded up a separate bill that originally was intended to extend expired tax breaks and provide expanded unemployment benefits through the end of the year. The bill has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day.
The bill includes $1 billion for summer jobs programs, $1.5 billion in aid to farmers who had crops damaged by natural disasters and $4.6 billion to settle two long-running lawsuits against the government, one by black farmers claiming discrimination and one by American Indians over the government's management of their land.
In all, the bill would add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit, drawing opposition from Republicans and some Democrats. House leaders said Tuesday they were determined to pass the bill this week to avoid allowing jobless benefits to expire for thousands of people.
But the measure has been delayed while House leaders round up support, which could mean the Senate might have too little time to act before next week's Memorial Day recess.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
Police State: Cops Shut Down 7 Yr.Old's Lemonade Stand
Police State: Cops Shut Down 7 Yr.Old's Lemonade Stand
Police in Tulare, California shutdown the lemonade stand of a 7 year-old girl because she did not hold a permit or registered location. The girl and her family appealed to city council and have drawn media attention since.
Police in Tulare, California shutdown the lemonade stand of a 7 year-old girl because she did not hold a permit or registered location. The girl and her family appealed to city council and have drawn media attention since.
Sodium Fluoride Is Good For You!
Sodium Fluoride Is Good For You!
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sodium Fluoride is good for you! That’s why bags of it are adorned with giant skull and crossbones with the words “danger – posion, toxic by ingestion”. That’s why the toothpaste tube tells you to immediately seek medical help from the Poison Control Center if you swallow it.
That’s why a major Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerges of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.
That’s why the first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)
FLASHBACK: Story on Mystery Substance Distracts from Fact Fluoride is a Deadly Killer
FLASHBACK: Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sodium Fluoride is good for you! That’s why bags of it are adorned with giant skull and crossbones with the words “danger – posion, toxic by ingestion”. That’s why the toothpaste tube tells you to immediately seek medical help from the Poison Control Center if you swallow it.
That’s why a major Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerges of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.
That’s why the first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)
FLASHBACK: Story on Mystery Substance Distracts from Fact Fluoride is a Deadly Killer
FLASHBACK: Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror Stories Factual
Private Corporation Building Detention Camps Across America
Private Corporation Building Detention Camps Across America
Sprawling jail facilities sit empty in anticipation of the federal government’s “ENDGAME” internment plan
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The shadowy design firm that was behind the infamous Hardin Montana jail is pushing to build detention camps across America, with the latest proposal centering around a fifty acre, five hundred bed facility in Italy, Texas, part of a program that many Americans fear is based around a plan to intern political dissidents in the event of a national emergency.
Private prison development firm Corplan Corrections, headed up by an individual called James Parkey, is working with underwriter Municipal Capitol Markets Group, along with prison “consultant” Richard Reyes from Innovative Government Strategies, an outfit that works with state and local government, to oversee multiple projects concentrated in different states including Arizona and Texas.
Their latest project is focused around constructing a “detention center for illegal immigrants” based in Italy, Texas. The Italy City Council heard Parkey’s proposals last week to build a “gorilla proof facility with a fence,” that would be used as a “processing center”.
The company was also behind the infamous internment facility in Hardin Montana, which attracted national media attention when responsibility for its security was handed to a mysterious paramilitary organization called American Police Force, which was fronted by career criminal and a convicted fraudster Michael Hilton, who operated under no less than 17 different aliases.
The group was also behind controversial plans to build a detention facility on Tohono O’odham Nation land near Sahuarita, Arizona.
Parkey also attempted to convince the Benson City Council to build a detention camp in that part of Arizona earlier this month.
Parkey’s efforts to oversee three separate jail deals with Texas counties failed following insufficient funds being made available to run the facilities, and in 2005, “Three Texas county commissioners were convicted on bribery charges in connection to one of those Parkey-led projects,” reports TPM.
The only stumbling block that Parkey has repeatedly run into when trying to convince local authorities to accept his proposals to build the camps is the lack of prisoners to fill them . Indeed, critics have accused him of fleecing desperate small communities with promises of jobs and economic development that never come to fruition, leaving empty jails and financial black holes.
But should the federal government and Homeland Security activate its “ENDGAME” scenario in response to a declared national emergency, illegal aliens, as well as “potential terrorists” will be rounded up and imprisoned in detention camps that the Feds themselves, not just private companies, have been building over the course of the last decade.
Back in January 2006, we reported on how Homeland Security had awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root a $385 million dollar contract to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, as is the case with the Corplan proposals, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”
The stated purpose of the detention camps, to hold illegal aliens, is routinely cited, yet continuity of government plans clearly indicate that the facilities will have a dual purpose – to hold political dissidents and American citizens in the event of a declaration of martial law.
Veteran author Peter Dale Scott characterized the Halliburton contract as another step towards martial law. As Scott points out, the camps will also be used to “support the rapid development of new programs,” which more specifically relates to a longer term Homeland Security operation entitled ENDGAME, which sets its goal as the removal of not only illegal aliens but also “potential terrorists”.
As we have illustrated, in documents like the MIAC report and a plethora of others, federal authorities define American citizens who are even mildly political, own guns, or support third party candidates as potential terrorists.
“The contract calls for a response to “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies, such as “a natural disaster.” “New programs” is of course a term with no precise limitation. So, in the current administration, is ENDGAME’s goal of removing “potential terrorists,” writes Scott, adding that former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the construction of internment camps for American citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants”.
Other agencies of the federal government have also been busy trying to build detention camps over the course of the last decade. In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
In February 2003, Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public with his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the camps.
Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.
Whether these detention camps will be bossed by private paramilitary security forces, agents of the federal government, or a combination of the two is largely immaterial. What should concern all Americans is the fact that the camps are being constructed at all and that under new legal arguments being re-applied by President Obama, Americans can be abducted and held without trial in such facilities under the enemy combatant designation.
Sprawling jail facilities sit empty in anticipation of the federal government’s “ENDGAME” internment plan
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 27, 2010
The shadowy design firm that was behind the infamous Hardin Montana jail is pushing to build detention camps across America, with the latest proposal centering around a fifty acre, five hundred bed facility in Italy, Texas, part of a program that many Americans fear is based around a plan to intern political dissidents in the event of a national emergency.
Private prison development firm Corplan Corrections, headed up by an individual called James Parkey, is working with underwriter Municipal Capitol Markets Group, along with prison “consultant” Richard Reyes from Innovative Government Strategies, an outfit that works with state and local government, to oversee multiple projects concentrated in different states including Arizona and Texas.
Their latest project is focused around constructing a “detention center for illegal immigrants” based in Italy, Texas. The Italy City Council heard Parkey’s proposals last week to build a “gorilla proof facility with a fence,” that would be used as a “processing center”.
The company was also behind the infamous internment facility in Hardin Montana, which attracted national media attention when responsibility for its security was handed to a mysterious paramilitary organization called American Police Force, which was fronted by career criminal and a convicted fraudster Michael Hilton, who operated under no less than 17 different aliases.
The group was also behind controversial plans to build a detention facility on Tohono O’odham Nation land near Sahuarita, Arizona.
Parkey also attempted to convince the Benson City Council to build a detention camp in that part of Arizona earlier this month.
Parkey’s efforts to oversee three separate jail deals with Texas counties failed following insufficient funds being made available to run the facilities, and in 2005, “Three Texas county commissioners were convicted on bribery charges in connection to one of those Parkey-led projects,” reports TPM.
The only stumbling block that Parkey has repeatedly run into when trying to convince local authorities to accept his proposals to build the camps is the lack of prisoners to fill them . Indeed, critics have accused him of fleecing desperate small communities with promises of jobs and economic development that never come to fruition, leaving empty jails and financial black holes.
But should the federal government and Homeland Security activate its “ENDGAME” scenario in response to a declared national emergency, illegal aliens, as well as “potential terrorists” will be rounded up and imprisoned in detention camps that the Feds themselves, not just private companies, have been building over the course of the last decade.
Back in January 2006, we reported on how Homeland Security had awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root a $385 million dollar contract to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, as is the case with the Corplan proposals, but it is made clear that the camps will also be used “as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency.”
The stated purpose of the detention camps, to hold illegal aliens, is routinely cited, yet continuity of government plans clearly indicate that the facilities will have a dual purpose – to hold political dissidents and American citizens in the event of a declaration of martial law.
Veteran author Peter Dale Scott characterized the Halliburton contract as another step towards martial law. As Scott points out, the camps will also be used to “support the rapid development of new programs,” which more specifically relates to a longer term Homeland Security operation entitled ENDGAME, which sets its goal as the removal of not only illegal aliens but also “potential terrorists”.
As we have illustrated, in documents like the MIAC report and a plethora of others, federal authorities define American citizens who are even mildly political, own guns, or support third party candidates as potential terrorists.
“The contract calls for a response to “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies, such as “a natural disaster.” “New programs” is of course a term with no precise limitation. So, in the current administration, is ENDGAME’s goal of removing “potential terrorists,” writes Scott, adding that former Attorney General John Ashcroft called for the construction of internment camps for American citizens deemed to be “enemy combatants”.
Other agencies of the federal government have also been busy trying to build detention camps over the course of the last decade. In 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
In February 2003, Okanogan County Commissioner Dave Schulz went public with his contention that his county was set to be a location for one of the camps.
Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.
Whether these detention camps will be bossed by private paramilitary security forces, agents of the federal government, or a combination of the two is largely immaterial. What should concern all Americans is the fact that the camps are being constructed at all and that under new legal arguments being re-applied by President Obama, Americans can be abducted and held without trial in such facilities under the enemy combatant designation.
15 Unusual Uses For Baking Soda
15 Unusual Uses For Baking Soda
Baking soda isn't just for deodorizing your fridge or for cooking: We explore he many joys of using baking soda around the house.
How can baking soda be good for cleaning, baking, deodorizing -- and even weeding -- all at the same time? Vicki Lansky's book, Baking Soda: Over 500 Fabulous, Fun, and Frugal Uses You've Probably Never Thought Of, explains it all. The book was a runaway hit in 2003, and it still is today, because frugal times call for frugal ingredients that get the job done as well as store-bought formulas. We scoured our sources and found a few more unusual ways to put inexpensive baking soda to work at home. (For more on this miraculous green ingredient, refer to Lansky's book.)
1. Washing food
Make a paste of baking soda on a clean sponge, and then wash toxins off the skin of fruits and vegetables. Rinse well before eating.
2. Drain cleaner
Okay, baking soda it isn't as powerful as commercial de-cloggers, but it costs virtually pennies to make and is a great first line of defense. Take a half cup of baking soda, pour down drain followed by half cup of white vinegar. Place a glass bowl over the top of the drain for two hours, then rinse with hot water. This should remove grease and dirt build-up through the pipes.
3. Vacuum odors
Sprinkle baking soda on the floor, then vacuum it up to kill odors in your vacuum.
4. Welcome mats
Speaking of floors, according to Lansky's book, you can ditch and deodorize the dirt at your front door by sprinkling baking soda on welcome mats, then vacuuming up the powder.
5. Soft hands
Make baking soda into a paste and use on hands while washing dishes. It'll help remove tough baked-on food while softening your hands at the same time.
6. Musty books
Do you have some old and musty books that you can't bear to throw out? Sprinkle some baking soda between the pages, and brush it out a few days later for a fresh scent
7. Mothball smell
According to the blog, Green Eco Services, the smell of mothballs on clothing can be removed by adding ½ cup of baking soda to your washing machine's rinse cycle to eliminate the odor.
8. Oil and grease
Sprinkle soda on the garage or basement floor to soak up oil and grease.
9. Weathered look
If you want a quick way to eliminate mold and mildew while achieving a weathered look for your deck, Green Eco Services recommends you use baking soda. Wash your deck with a solution of two cups baking soda in one gallon water, and use a stiff straw brush to work the solution into the wood, then rinse with cool water for a clean, yet aged patina.
10. Weed killer
Sweeping large amounts of sodium-rich baking soda into the cracks of your paved walks and driveways will eliminate weeds and dandelions.
11. Canvas cleaner
To clean anything canvas, rub on a paste of baking soda, then rub off.
12. Burnt pots
To eliminate seriously burnt-on food, pour in a thick cushion of baking soda, add an inch or so of water, and put the pot on the stove to boil. After boiling for a minute, try scrubbing again (don't burn yourself). The burned-on mess should come right off.
13. Plastic shower curtains
One of the best tips in Lansky's book alleviates this stubborn problem and cuts down on the amount of money spent on shower curtains: Wash mildewed or dirty plastic shower curtains in the washing machine on the gentle cycle with a couple of bath towels, and add in a half cup of baking soda and detergent during the wash cycle. Add in one cup of vinegar during the rinse cycle, then let drip dry.
14. Automatic dishwasher detergent
Make an automatic dish washing detergent using baking soda (and it works): Simply mix two tablespoons baking soda and two tablespoons borax, as a alternative to commercial detergent.. If you prefer to use your dish washing detergent, but want a cleaning boost, then just sprinkle a good amount of baking soda over dirty dishes, then wash as usual.
15. Stinky clothes
We know that baking soda deodorizes just about anything, but here's another way to use it for clothing with a deep smoke or gasoline odor. Place the clothing in a plastic bag with baking soda for two days, then wash as usual.
What about you, dear readers? How do you use baking soda around the house? If you have a tip on cleaning with baking soda that isn't listed here, and possibly not in Lansky's book, please share the wisdom here with our readers.
Baking soda isn't just for deodorizing your fridge or for cooking: We explore he many joys of using baking soda around the house.
How can baking soda be good for cleaning, baking, deodorizing -- and even weeding -- all at the same time? Vicki Lansky's book, Baking Soda: Over 500 Fabulous, Fun, and Frugal Uses You've Probably Never Thought Of, explains it all. The book was a runaway hit in 2003, and it still is today, because frugal times call for frugal ingredients that get the job done as well as store-bought formulas. We scoured our sources and found a few more unusual ways to put inexpensive baking soda to work at home. (For more on this miraculous green ingredient, refer to Lansky's book.)
1. Washing food
Make a paste of baking soda on a clean sponge, and then wash toxins off the skin of fruits and vegetables. Rinse well before eating.
2. Drain cleaner
Okay, baking soda it isn't as powerful as commercial de-cloggers, but it costs virtually pennies to make and is a great first line of defense. Take a half cup of baking soda, pour down drain followed by half cup of white vinegar. Place a glass bowl over the top of the drain for two hours, then rinse with hot water. This should remove grease and dirt build-up through the pipes.
3. Vacuum odors
Sprinkle baking soda on the floor, then vacuum it up to kill odors in your vacuum.
4. Welcome mats
Speaking of floors, according to Lansky's book, you can ditch and deodorize the dirt at your front door by sprinkling baking soda on welcome mats, then vacuuming up the powder.
5. Soft hands
Make baking soda into a paste and use on hands while washing dishes. It'll help remove tough baked-on food while softening your hands at the same time.
6. Musty books
Do you have some old and musty books that you can't bear to throw out? Sprinkle some baking soda between the pages, and brush it out a few days later for a fresh scent
7. Mothball smell
According to the blog, Green Eco Services, the smell of mothballs on clothing can be removed by adding ½ cup of baking soda to your washing machine's rinse cycle to eliminate the odor.
8. Oil and grease
Sprinkle soda on the garage or basement floor to soak up oil and grease.
9. Weathered look
If you want a quick way to eliminate mold and mildew while achieving a weathered look for your deck, Green Eco Services recommends you use baking soda. Wash your deck with a solution of two cups baking soda in one gallon water, and use a stiff straw brush to work the solution into the wood, then rinse with cool water for a clean, yet aged patina.
10. Weed killer
Sweeping large amounts of sodium-rich baking soda into the cracks of your paved walks and driveways will eliminate weeds and dandelions.
11. Canvas cleaner
To clean anything canvas, rub on a paste of baking soda, then rub off.
12. Burnt pots
To eliminate seriously burnt-on food, pour in a thick cushion of baking soda, add an inch or so of water, and put the pot on the stove to boil. After boiling for a minute, try scrubbing again (don't burn yourself). The burned-on mess should come right off.
13. Plastic shower curtains
One of the best tips in Lansky's book alleviates this stubborn problem and cuts down on the amount of money spent on shower curtains: Wash mildewed or dirty plastic shower curtains in the washing machine on the gentle cycle with a couple of bath towels, and add in a half cup of baking soda and detergent during the wash cycle. Add in one cup of vinegar during the rinse cycle, then let drip dry.
14. Automatic dishwasher detergent
Make an automatic dish washing detergent using baking soda (and it works): Simply mix two tablespoons baking soda and two tablespoons borax, as a alternative to commercial detergent.. If you prefer to use your dish washing detergent, but want a cleaning boost, then just sprinkle a good amount of baking soda over dirty dishes, then wash as usual.
15. Stinky clothes
We know that baking soda deodorizes just about anything, but here's another way to use it for clothing with a deep smoke or gasoline odor. Place the clothing in a plastic bag with baking soda for two days, then wash as usual.
What about you, dear readers? How do you use baking soda around the house? If you have a tip on cleaning with baking soda that isn't listed here, and possibly not in Lansky's book, please share the wisdom here with our readers.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition
Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition
Veteran Middle East correspondent Alan Hart: Largest engineering firm studied collapse of twin towers and said there was no doubt it was a controlled explosion
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.
“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.
Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”
Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.
Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.
“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.
Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.
Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.
In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.
Listen to the full interview with Alan Hart below. The 9/11 discussion begins at around the 35 minute mark.
Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Don't Tread On Me Right Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!
Veteran Middle East correspondent Alan Hart: Largest engineering firm studied collapse of twin towers and said there was no doubt it was a controlled explosion
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.
“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.
Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”
Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.
Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.
“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.
Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.
Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.
In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.
In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.
Listen to the full interview with Alan Hart below. The 9/11 discussion begins at around the 35 minute mark.
Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Don't Tread On Me Right Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!
GULF OIL SPILL COULD HAVE BEEN SEALED IN 8 HOURS ANYTIME
GULF OIL SPILL COULD HAVE BEEN SEALED IN 8 HOURS ANYTIME
By Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The DEEPWATER HORIZON sinking caused twisted 21 inch riser piping to start leaking in three places at 5,000 feet in the Gulf Seabed. Sadly the proven methods to STOP THE LEAK still have not been used since 042010 until today at 052010 for reasons unknown. BP, Governor of Florida and Governor of LA were all given, along with the President, the Counter Pressure Plug information from a UK inventor Branko R. Babic as he invented same in 1991 for Kuwait Oil Fires above the ground and they will work underwater with ROV welding special thick steel tubes with washers to be welded to the interior while the tubes allow full flow of gas, oil, water through tubes into the gulf.
ROV's can be used to WELD UNDERWATER the 5 inch thick washers compressed with thick rubber washers against the inside pipe sealing off all leaking oil, gas and water while the straight through pipe could take the contents flowing through to the TOP of the sea into barges. Keep in mind the CPP with flow pipe has a BALL VALVE wheel operated to shut down the flow and BP could then try to seal the BOP stopping the leak entirely.
BP and Horizon personnel reviewing the messages since 041610 first started denying the idea had merit and they put a straw type pipe six inches inside with rubber flaps then started drawing OFF oil and gas from ONE LEAKING AREA but BP refused to consider the CPP Invention of Branko R. Babic or suggestion to use a "JET SWET' type invention to seal the big pipe and allow the small pipe to function until welded in place then the BALL VALVE WOULD SHUT DOWN THE WELL SO THEY COULD TRY TO USE THE BOP TO SEAL.
What is ODD is a survivor who was the Chief Electronics Technician KNEW the BOP annular was damaged weeks earlier and that the rubber had come up through the piping and was shown to proper supervisors. Also the BOP ELECTRICAL MODULE was damaged plus a battery problem prevented the BOP from shutting down at the time of the alleged ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT causing the disaster. Sounds like CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING THE DEATH OF 11 MEN AND RISKING 115 OTHERS that has to be investigated.
I am, as a Professional Plumbing Contractor and former Welder, amazed that BP ignored the requests to use an 8 hour window to make and test the CPP and CPP with piping and ball valve then STOP THE LEAK since 042610 through today 052010. More amazing is the failure of the United States President and others to TAKE OVER THE SITE IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY UNTIL EVERYTHING IS REMOVED FROM THE SEA BED AND CONFIRMATION OF CRIMINAL ACTS OR TERRORISM IF NOT MURDER ARE CONFIRMED.
The BP people have been paid an insurance POLICY OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS without any proof the damage was an ACCIDENT or even covered events with knowledge of BOP or other problems ignored.
Anyone desiring a COPY OF PDF'S CONFIRMING FAILURE OF BP to act send an e-mail to backflow2@verizon.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it asking for same and it will arrive.
I just finished sending e-mails to everyone and LABEOC on how to siphon OFF THE OIL AND WATER then separate the OIL from water and store the OIL in barges using special equipment known to work for SKIMMING OIL. PRAY FOR FLORIDA, GULF COAST AND EAST COAST OF AMERICA PLUS ISLANDS !
Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.
Backflow Prevention, Inc. CFC032631
4532 W. Kennedy Blvd. PMB-276
Tampa, Florida 33609-2042 USA
052010 ONE MONTH SPILL COULD HAVE BEEN SEALED ANY DAY IN 8 HOURS FLAT !
By Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The DEEPWATER HORIZON sinking caused twisted 21 inch riser piping to start leaking in three places at 5,000 feet in the Gulf Seabed. Sadly the proven methods to STOP THE LEAK still have not been used since 042010 until today at 052010 for reasons unknown. BP, Governor of Florida and Governor of LA were all given, along with the President, the Counter Pressure Plug information from a UK inventor Branko R. Babic as he invented same in 1991 for Kuwait Oil Fires above the ground and they will work underwater with ROV welding special thick steel tubes with washers to be welded to the interior while the tubes allow full flow of gas, oil, water through tubes into the gulf.
ROV's can be used to WELD UNDERWATER the 5 inch thick washers compressed with thick rubber washers against the inside pipe sealing off all leaking oil, gas and water while the straight through pipe could take the contents flowing through to the TOP of the sea into barges. Keep in mind the CPP with flow pipe has a BALL VALVE wheel operated to shut down the flow and BP could then try to seal the BOP stopping the leak entirely.
BP and Horizon personnel reviewing the messages since 041610 first started denying the idea had merit and they put a straw type pipe six inches inside with rubber flaps then started drawing OFF oil and gas from ONE LEAKING AREA but BP refused to consider the CPP Invention of Branko R. Babic or suggestion to use a "JET SWET' type invention to seal the big pipe and allow the small pipe to function until welded in place then the BALL VALVE WOULD SHUT DOWN THE WELL SO THEY COULD TRY TO USE THE BOP TO SEAL.
What is ODD is a survivor who was the Chief Electronics Technician KNEW the BOP annular was damaged weeks earlier and that the rubber had come up through the piping and was shown to proper supervisors. Also the BOP ELECTRICAL MODULE was damaged plus a battery problem prevented the BOP from shutting down at the time of the alleged ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT causing the disaster. Sounds like CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING THE DEATH OF 11 MEN AND RISKING 115 OTHERS that has to be investigated.
I am, as a Professional Plumbing Contractor and former Welder, amazed that BP ignored the requests to use an 8 hour window to make and test the CPP and CPP with piping and ball valve then STOP THE LEAK since 042610 through today 052010. More amazing is the failure of the United States President and others to TAKE OVER THE SITE IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY UNTIL EVERYTHING IS REMOVED FROM THE SEA BED AND CONFIRMATION OF CRIMINAL ACTS OR TERRORISM IF NOT MURDER ARE CONFIRMED.
The BP people have been paid an insurance POLICY OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS without any proof the damage was an ACCIDENT or even covered events with knowledge of BOP or other problems ignored.
Anyone desiring a COPY OF PDF'S CONFIRMING FAILURE OF BP to act send an e-mail to backflow2@verizon.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it asking for same and it will arrive.
I just finished sending e-mails to everyone and LABEOC on how to siphon OFF THE OIL AND WATER then separate the OIL from water and store the OIL in barges using special equipment known to work for SKIMMING OIL. PRAY FOR FLORIDA, GULF COAST AND EAST COAST OF AMERICA PLUS ISLANDS !
Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.
Backflow Prevention, Inc. CFC032631
4532 W. Kennedy Blvd. PMB-276
Tampa, Florida 33609-2042 USA
052010 ONE MONTH SPILL COULD HAVE BEEN SEALED ANY DAY IN 8 HOURS FLAT !
Psych Drugs Killing US Military Vets In Their Sleep
Psych Drugs Killing US Military Vets In Their Sleep
Psych Drugs Killing US Military Vets In Their Sleep
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 396
Psychotropic Drug-Induced Sudden Deaths in Iraq War Veterans
Deadly Combination of Seroquel, Paxil and Klonopin Involved
By Andrew Tighman
Published in the Marine Corps Times
5-26-10
EL CAJON, CA (PRNewswire) -- Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD today announced the results of his research into the "series" of veterans' deaths acknowledged by the Surgeon General of the Army.
Upon reading the May 24, 2008, Charleston (WV) Gazette article "Vets Taking Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Drugs Die in Sleep," Baughman began to investigate why these reported deaths were "different." And, why they were likely, the "tip of an iceberg."
Andrew White, Eric Layne, Nicholas Endicott and Derek Johnson were four West Virginia veterans who died in their sleep in early 2008. Baughman's research suggests that they did not commit suicide and did not "overdose" leading to coma as suggested by the military. All were diagnosed with PTSD. All seemed "normal" when they went to bed. And, all were on Seroquel (an antipsychotic) Paxil (an antidepressant) and Klonopin (a benzodiazepine).
They were not comatose and unarousable - with pulse and respirations or pulse intact, responsive to CPR, surviving transport to a hospital, frequently surviving. These were sudden cardiac deaths.
At the time, Stan White, father of Andrew White knew of eight such cases in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
In a February 7, 2008 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the Army's surgeon general, said there has been "a series, a sequence of deaths" in the new "warrior transition units."
In April 2005, the FDA warned that Seroquel put elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis at increased risk of death.
On January 15, 2009, Ray et al, reported that antipsychotics double the risk of sudden cardiac death. On March 17, 2009, Whang et al reported that antidepressants, as well, increase the rate of sudden cardiac deaths.
And yet, in an August 14, 2008 analysis of two of the four Charleston-area deaths, the Inspector General for Veterans Affairs concluded (Report No. 08-01377-185): "Although antipsychotic medications have been identified as possible causes of cardiac rhythm disturbances, a 2001 review...found no association with olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel), or risperidone (Risperdal) and Torsades de Pointes (a fatal heart rhythm) or sudden death... we are unaware of any clinical practice guidelines recommending baseline or periodic electrocardiogram monitoring in young, healthy patients on quetiapine (Seroquel)."
However, in a literature review covering the years 2000-2007, entitled Sudden Cardiac Death Secondary to Antidepressant and Antipsychotic Drugs: [Expert Opinion on Drug Safety; 2008, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 181-194(14)] Sicouri and Antzelevitch conclude: (1) "A number of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs can increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death" (2) "Antipsychotics can increase cardiac risk even at low doses whereas antidepressants do it generally at high doses or in the setting of drug combinations," and (3) "These observations call foran ECG at baseline and after drug administration."
This March 2008 article and the entire 2000-2007 medical literature it reviews was available to the Inspector General had they chosen not to ignore it.
On April 13, 2009, I wrote the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) pressing him about his "sequence of deaths" statement and the existence of a definitive analysis of these sudden deaths. Four days later the OTSG responded: "The assessment is still pending and has not been released yet."
As of today, May 24, 1010, veteran's wife, Diane VandeBurgt had "Googled" 128 (one hundred twenty eight) such veteran's deaths: "dead in barracks," "in bed," "at work station." Dead! None in a coma.
In her article Nearly 70 soldiers died in WTUs' first 16 months by Gina Cavallaro, Army Times, February 1, 2009 - the public heard a major "slip of the tongue" by Army officialdom: "More than 70 soldiers have died while assigned to one of the Army's 36 WTUs, but suicide is not the leading cause." Of those, nine (13%) were ruled suicides; six (9%) were pending investigation; 13 (19%) were killed in accidents; and 35 (50%) were from "natural causes." "Natural causes" in 20 year olds? "We do have warriors in transition who have died of cancer. There have also been heart attacks," said WCTO (Warrior Transition Command) spokesman Robert Moore.
How many "heart attacks?" Neither Cavallaro or Moore returned my calls.
On April 22, 2010 I anonymously received "SIRS (Serious Incident Reports) 10/03/09-3/7/10/." In it were listed: Total ARNG (Army National Guard) "Accident Fatalities--20; Suicide--32 (6 confirmed 12 pending); Combat--8; Illness caused--23; Other deaths--10; Total--93. Among the listed: 10/19/09-"illness heart attack"; 10/28/09-"illness cardiac arrest"; 11/10/09-"other found dead"; 11/14/09-"other found dead"; 11/28/09-"illness heart attack"; 12/26/09-"illness heart attack"; 1/2/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/7/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/9/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/3/10-"illness cardiac arrest."; 2/10/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/21/10-"illness heart attack." Here we have 13 of 93 (14%) definite or probable sudden cardiac deaths.
Like the four Charleston-area veterans, Pfc. Ryan Alderman was also on a never-justifiable cocktail of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs when he was found dead in his barracks at Ft. Carson, Colo. Sudden cardiac death was confirmed by EKG by emergency medical technicians at the scene, but reclassified as "suicide." Why? By whom?
The soldiers, veterans, their families and nation await the truth about this epidemic of antipsychotic-antidepressant, sudden cardiac deaths in the military.
SOURCE Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
Psych Drugs Killing US Military Vets In Their Sleep
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 396
Psychotropic Drug-Induced Sudden Deaths in Iraq War Veterans
Deadly Combination of Seroquel, Paxil and Klonopin Involved
By Andrew Tighman
Published in the Marine Corps Times
5-26-10
EL CAJON, CA (PRNewswire) -- Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD today announced the results of his research into the "series" of veterans' deaths acknowledged by the Surgeon General of the Army.
Upon reading the May 24, 2008, Charleston (WV) Gazette article "Vets Taking Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Drugs Die in Sleep," Baughman began to investigate why these reported deaths were "different." And, why they were likely, the "tip of an iceberg."
Andrew White, Eric Layne, Nicholas Endicott and Derek Johnson were four West Virginia veterans who died in their sleep in early 2008. Baughman's research suggests that they did not commit suicide and did not "overdose" leading to coma as suggested by the military. All were diagnosed with PTSD. All seemed "normal" when they went to bed. And, all were on Seroquel (an antipsychotic) Paxil (an antidepressant) and Klonopin (a benzodiazepine).
They were not comatose and unarousable - with pulse and respirations or pulse intact, responsive to CPR, surviving transport to a hospital, frequently surviving. These were sudden cardiac deaths.
At the time, Stan White, father of Andrew White knew of eight such cases in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
In a February 7, 2008 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Lt. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the Army's surgeon general, said there has been "a series, a sequence of deaths" in the new "warrior transition units."
In April 2005, the FDA warned that Seroquel put elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis at increased risk of death.
On January 15, 2009, Ray et al, reported that antipsychotics double the risk of sudden cardiac death. On March 17, 2009, Whang et al reported that antidepressants, as well, increase the rate of sudden cardiac deaths.
And yet, in an August 14, 2008 analysis of two of the four Charleston-area deaths, the Inspector General for Veterans Affairs concluded (Report No. 08-01377-185): "Although antipsychotic medications have been identified as possible causes of cardiac rhythm disturbances, a 2001 review...found no association with olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel), or risperidone (Risperdal) and Torsades de Pointes (a fatal heart rhythm) or sudden death... we are unaware of any clinical practice guidelines recommending baseline or periodic electrocardiogram monitoring in young, healthy patients on quetiapine (Seroquel)."
However, in a literature review covering the years 2000-2007, entitled Sudden Cardiac Death Secondary to Antidepressant and Antipsychotic Drugs: [Expert Opinion on Drug Safety; 2008, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 181-194(14)] Sicouri and Antzelevitch conclude: (1) "A number of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs can increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death" (2) "Antipsychotics can increase cardiac risk even at low doses whereas antidepressants do it generally at high doses or in the setting of drug combinations," and (3) "These observations call foran ECG at baseline and after drug administration."
This March 2008 article and the entire 2000-2007 medical literature it reviews was available to the Inspector General had they chosen not to ignore it.
On April 13, 2009, I wrote the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) pressing him about his "sequence of deaths" statement and the existence of a definitive analysis of these sudden deaths. Four days later the OTSG responded: "The assessment is still pending and has not been released yet."
As of today, May 24, 1010, veteran's wife, Diane VandeBurgt had "Googled" 128 (one hundred twenty eight) such veteran's deaths: "dead in barracks," "in bed," "at work station." Dead! None in a coma.
In her article Nearly 70 soldiers died in WTUs' first 16 months by Gina Cavallaro, Army Times, February 1, 2009 - the public heard a major "slip of the tongue" by Army officialdom: "More than 70 soldiers have died while assigned to one of the Army's 36 WTUs, but suicide is not the leading cause." Of those, nine (13%) were ruled suicides; six (9%) were pending investigation; 13 (19%) were killed in accidents; and 35 (50%) were from "natural causes." "Natural causes" in 20 year olds? "We do have warriors in transition who have died of cancer. There have also been heart attacks," said WCTO (Warrior Transition Command) spokesman Robert Moore.
How many "heart attacks?" Neither Cavallaro or Moore returned my calls.
On April 22, 2010 I anonymously received "SIRS (Serious Incident Reports) 10/03/09-3/7/10/." In it were listed: Total ARNG (Army National Guard) "Accident Fatalities--20; Suicide--32 (6 confirmed 12 pending); Combat--8; Illness caused--23; Other deaths--10; Total--93. Among the listed: 10/19/09-"illness heart attack"; 10/28/09-"illness cardiac arrest"; 11/10/09-"other found dead"; 11/14/09-"other found dead"; 11/28/09-"illness heart attack"; 12/26/09-"illness heart attack"; 1/2/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/7/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/9/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/3/10-"illness cardiac arrest."; 2/10/10-"illness cardiac arrest"; 2/21/10-"illness heart attack." Here we have 13 of 93 (14%) definite or probable sudden cardiac deaths.
Like the four Charleston-area veterans, Pfc. Ryan Alderman was also on a never-justifiable cocktail of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs when he was found dead in his barracks at Ft. Carson, Colo. Sudden cardiac death was confirmed by EKG by emergency medical technicians at the scene, but reclassified as "suicide." Why? By whom?
The soldiers, veterans, their families and nation await the truth about this epidemic of antipsychotic-antidepressant, sudden cardiac deaths in the military.
SOURCE Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
Irate Carville Begs Obama: ‘Get Down Here and Take Control’
Irate Carville Begs Obama: ‘Get Down Here and Take Control’
Irate Carville Begs Obama: ‘Get Down Here and Take Control’
Breitbart.tv
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
“The political stupidity of this is just unbelievable…we’re about to die down here!”
Irate Carville Begs Obama: ‘Get Down Here and Take Control’
Breitbart.tv
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
“The political stupidity of this is just unbelievable…we’re about to die down here!”
RFID chip implanted into man gets computer virus
RFID chip implanted into man gets computer virus
BBC
May 26, 2010
Researchers have found that implanted identity chips can pick up computer viruses.
Reading University’s Mark Gasson conducted an experiment to show how radio frequency identity (RFID) chips could become electronically infected.
He explained to Rory Cellan-Jones the risks involved with the new technology including its effects on medical implants such as pacemakers.
BBC
May 26, 2010
Researchers have found that implanted identity chips can pick up computer viruses.
Reading University’s Mark Gasson conducted an experiment to show how radio frequency identity (RFID) chips could become electronically infected.
He explained to Rory Cellan-Jones the risks involved with the new technology including its effects on medical implants such as pacemakers.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
"What in the World are They Spraying?" - Official Trailer
"What in the World are They Spraying?" - Official Trailer
U.S. Postal Service Expands Construction Of Secret Rooms
U.S. Postal Service Expands Construction Of Secret Rooms
Military source fears “criminal investigative units” will be used as black sites for detainment of Americans in the event of a national emergency and a declaration of martial law
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
We have received documents from a military source indicating that U.S. Postal Service facilities across the country are expanding the construction of secretive criminal investigation rooms, which some fear will be used to detain American citizens in the event of a national emergency, bioterror attack or pandemic.
The documents (PDF) show architectural floor plans for criminal investigation rooms that would be housed within existing U.S. Postal Service buildings. The blueprints show “secret rooms” within post offices where, the source claims, “families will be separated” in the event of martial law being declared.
The United States Postal Service undoubtedly uses such “criminal investigative units” to conduct investigations into mail fraud through its federal enforcement arm, the United States Postal Inspection Service, but as with many things of this nature, everything serves a dual purpose.
The fact that such rooms are being constructed inside post offices is verified. We discovered this web page which talks about how an architecture firm called IPG Architects constructed a “Criminal Investigative Office” within the Macon Post Office in Macon, Georgia. The new documents describe similar rooms being constructed in Lake Forest, Illinois and Gurnee, Illinois.
The tone of the article that accompanies the documents is not for the faint-hearted, but the threat of the federal government seizing post offices and using them as detainment facilities is very real.
Under the terms of the December 2001 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, of which the majority of states have now passed similar versions, the government has the power to seize control of all public and private property.
Critics savaged the MSEHPA as “an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of the American people,” that, according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed, “could turn governors into dictators”.
The act included draconian and sweeping language giving the government almost limitless power in responding to a declared national health emergency, such as a bioterrorist attack or an epidemic.
Under the act, the government ascribes itself the power take over any public facility, including post offices.
In addition, a recent executive order signed by President Barack Obama hands the US Post Office a “key role” in dealing with the aftermath of a bioterrorist attack, according to an AFP report. The executive order directs the Post Office to work with government agencies and local law enforcement to oversee “medical countermeasures”.
“The US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were instructed to work with the post office to develop a “dispensing model for US cities to respond to a large-scale biological attack, with anthrax as the primary threat consideration,” states the report.
We have also previously received documents indicating that post offices would be used as detainment facilities in the event of a national emergency or a “red alert” being declared.
If all this sounds hard to believe, just remember that the same was said when we reported on how the federal government was recruiting religious leaders to pacify the public in the event of martial law being declared under the banner of the “clergy response team” program. The existence of the program was confirmed by news channel KSLA after first being brought to our attention by concerned pastors who were approached to partake in the initiative by the government.
Whether the Post Office’s role in a martial law scenario will also include providing quarantine and detainment facilities remains to be seen, but the documents provided to us do indicate that the construction of criminal investigation units within Post Office buildings is being expanded nationwide.
Click here for the full PDF of the floor plans showing how “criminal investigation offices” are being built inside U.S. post offices nationwide, as well as the accompanying article
Military source fears “criminal investigative units” will be used as black sites for detainment of Americans in the event of a national emergency and a declaration of martial law
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
We have received documents from a military source indicating that U.S. Postal Service facilities across the country are expanding the construction of secretive criminal investigation rooms, which some fear will be used to detain American citizens in the event of a national emergency, bioterror attack or pandemic.
The documents (PDF) show architectural floor plans for criminal investigation rooms that would be housed within existing U.S. Postal Service buildings. The blueprints show “secret rooms” within post offices where, the source claims, “families will be separated” in the event of martial law being declared.
The United States Postal Service undoubtedly uses such “criminal investigative units” to conduct investigations into mail fraud through its federal enforcement arm, the United States Postal Inspection Service, but as with many things of this nature, everything serves a dual purpose.
The fact that such rooms are being constructed inside post offices is verified. We discovered this web page which talks about how an architecture firm called IPG Architects constructed a “Criminal Investigative Office” within the Macon Post Office in Macon, Georgia. The new documents describe similar rooms being constructed in Lake Forest, Illinois and Gurnee, Illinois.
The tone of the article that accompanies the documents is not for the faint-hearted, but the threat of the federal government seizing post offices and using them as detainment facilities is very real.
Under the terms of the December 2001 Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, of which the majority of states have now passed similar versions, the government has the power to seize control of all public and private property.
Critics savaged the MSEHPA as “an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of the American people,” that, according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons claimed, “could turn governors into dictators”.
The act included draconian and sweeping language giving the government almost limitless power in responding to a declared national health emergency, such as a bioterrorist attack or an epidemic.
Under the act, the government ascribes itself the power take over any public facility, including post offices.
In addition, a recent executive order signed by President Barack Obama hands the US Post Office a “key role” in dealing with the aftermath of a bioterrorist attack, according to an AFP report. The executive order directs the Post Office to work with government agencies and local law enforcement to oversee “medical countermeasures”.
“The US Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were instructed to work with the post office to develop a “dispensing model for US cities to respond to a large-scale biological attack, with anthrax as the primary threat consideration,” states the report.
We have also previously received documents indicating that post offices would be used as detainment facilities in the event of a national emergency or a “red alert” being declared.
If all this sounds hard to believe, just remember that the same was said when we reported on how the federal government was recruiting religious leaders to pacify the public in the event of martial law being declared under the banner of the “clergy response team” program. The existence of the program was confirmed by news channel KSLA after first being brought to our attention by concerned pastors who were approached to partake in the initiative by the government.
Whether the Post Office’s role in a martial law scenario will also include providing quarantine and detainment facilities remains to be seen, but the documents provided to us do indicate that the construction of criminal investigation units within Post Office buildings is being expanded nationwide.
Click here for the full PDF of the floor plans showing how “criminal investigation offices” are being built inside U.S. post offices nationwide, as well as the accompanying article
25 Questions To Ask Anyone Who Is Delusional Enough To Believe That This Economic Recovery Is Real
25 Questions To Ask Anyone Who Is Delusional Enough To Believe That This Economic Recovery Is Real
The Economic Collapse
May 25, 2010
If you listen to the mainstream media long enough, you just might be tempted to believe that the United States has emerged from the recession and is now in the middle of a full-fledged economic recovery. In fact, according to Obama administration officials, the great American economic machine has roared back to life, stronger and more vibrant than ever before. But is that really the case? Of course not. You would have to be delusional to believe that. What did happen was that all of the stimulus packages and government spending and new debt that Obama and the U.S. Congress pumped into the economy bought us a little bit of time. But they have also made our long-term economic problems far worse. The reality is that the U.S. cannot keep supporting an economy on an ocean of red ink forever. At some point the charade is going to come crashing down.
And GDP is not a really good measure of the economic health of a nation. For example, if you would have looked at the growth of GDP in the Weimar republic in the early 1930s, you may have been tempted to think that the German economy was really thriving. German citizens were spending increasingly massive amounts of money. But of course that money was becoming increasingly worthless at the same time as hyperinflation spiralled out of control.
Well, today the purchasing power of our dollar is rapidly eroding as the price of food and other necessities continues to increase. So just because Americans are spending a little bit more money than before really doesn’t mean much of anything. As you will see below, there are a whole bunch of other signs that the U.S. economy is in very, very serious trouble.
Any “recovery” that the U.S. economy is experiencing is illusory and will be quite temporary. The entire financial system of the United States is falling apart, and the powers that be can try to patch it up and prop it up for a while, but in the end this thing is going to come crashing down.
But as obvious as that may seem to most of us, there are still quite a few people out there that are absolutely convinced that the U.S. economy will fully recover and will soon be stronger than ever.
So the following are 25 questions to ask anyone who is delusional enough to believe that this economic recovery is real….
#1) In what universe is an economy with 39.68 million Americans on food stamps considered to be a healthy, recovering economy? In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011. Is a rapidly increasing number of Americans on food stamps a good sign or a bad sign for the economy?
#2) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005. So can you please explain again how the U.S. real estate market is getting better?
#3) The Mortgage Bankers Association just announced that more than 10 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment in the January-March period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago. Do you think that is an indication that the U.S. housing market is recovering?
#4) How can the U.S. real estate market be considered healthy when, for the first time in modern history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together?
#5) With the U.S. Congress planning to quadruple oil taxes, what do you think that is going to do to the price of gasoline in the United States and how do you think that will affect the U.S. economy?
#6) Do you think that it is a good sign that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, says that “terrible cuts” are urgently needed in order to avoid a complete financial disaster in his state?
#7) But it just isn’t California that is in trouble. Dozens of U.S. states are in such bad financial shape that they are getting ready for their biggest budget cuts in decades. What do you think all of those budget cuts will do to the economy?
#8) In March, the U.S. trade deficit widened to its highest level since December 2008. Month after month after month we buy much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Wealth is draining out of the United States at an unprecedented rate. So is the fact that the gigantic U.S. trade deficit is actually getting bigger a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?
#9) Considering the fact that the U.S. government is projected to have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010, and considering the fact that if you went out and spent one dollar every single second it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars, how can anyone in their right mind claim that the U.S. economy is getting healthier when we are getting into so much debt?
#10) The U.S. Treasury Department recently announced that the U.S. government suffered a wider-than-expected budget deficit of 82.69 billion dollars in April. So is the fact that the red ink of the U.S. government is actually worse than projected a good sign or a bad sign?
#11) According to one new report, the U.S. national debt will reach 100 percent of GDP by the year 2015. So is that a sign of economic recovery or of economic disaster?
#12) Monstrous amounts of oil continue to gush freely into the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts are already projecting that the seafood and tourism industries along the Gulf coast will be devastated for decades by this unprecedented environmental disaster. In light of those facts, how in the world can anyone project that the U.S. economy will soon be stronger than ever?
#13) The FDIC’s list of problem banks recently hit a 17-year high. Do you think that an increasing number of small banks failing is a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?
#14) The FDIC is backing 8,000 banks that have a total of $13 trillion in assets with a deposit insurance fund that is basically flat broke. So what do you think will happen if a significant number of small banks do start failing?
#15) Existing home sales in the United States jumped 7.6 percent in April. That is the good news. The bad news is that this increase only happened because the deadline to take advantage of the temporary home buyer tax credit (government bribe) was looming. So now that there is no more tax credit for home buyers, what will that do to home sales?
#16) Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently told the U.S. government that they are going to need even more bailout money. So what does it say about the U.S. economy when the two “pillars” of the U.S. mortgage industry are government-backed financial black holes that the U.S. government has to relentlessly pour money into?
#17) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves just one lawsuit, one really bad traffic accident or one very serious illness away from financial ruin. With so many Americans living on the edge, how can you say that the economy is healthy?
#18) The mayor of Detroit says that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere around 50 percent. So can the U.S. really be experiencing an economic recovery when so many are still unemployed in one of America’s biggest cities?
#19) Gallup’s measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Do you think that is a good trend or a bad trend?
#20) One new poll shows that 76 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession. So are the vast majority of Americans just stupid or could we still actually be in a recession?
#21) The bottom 40 percent of those living in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. So is Barack Obama’s mantra that “what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street” actually true?
#22) Richard Russell, the famous author of the Dow Theory Letters, says that Americans should sell anything they can sell in order to get liquid because of the economic trouble that is coming. Do you think that Richard Russell is delusional or could he possibly have a point?
#23) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. In fact, that was almost twice the level of a year earlier. Does that look like a good trend to you?
#24) In March, the price of fresh and dried vegetables in the United States soared 49.3% - the most in 16 years. Is it a sign of a healthy economy when food prices are increasing so dramatically?
#25) 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 – a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005. So shouldn’t we at least wait until the number of Americans filing for bankruptcy is not setting new all-time records before we even dare whisper the words “economic recovery”?
The Economic Collapse
May 25, 2010
If you listen to the mainstream media long enough, you just might be tempted to believe that the United States has emerged from the recession and is now in the middle of a full-fledged economic recovery. In fact, according to Obama administration officials, the great American economic machine has roared back to life, stronger and more vibrant than ever before. But is that really the case? Of course not. You would have to be delusional to believe that. What did happen was that all of the stimulus packages and government spending and new debt that Obama and the U.S. Congress pumped into the economy bought us a little bit of time. But they have also made our long-term economic problems far worse. The reality is that the U.S. cannot keep supporting an economy on an ocean of red ink forever. At some point the charade is going to come crashing down.
And GDP is not a really good measure of the economic health of a nation. For example, if you would have looked at the growth of GDP in the Weimar republic in the early 1930s, you may have been tempted to think that the German economy was really thriving. German citizens were spending increasingly massive amounts of money. But of course that money was becoming increasingly worthless at the same time as hyperinflation spiralled out of control.
Well, today the purchasing power of our dollar is rapidly eroding as the price of food and other necessities continues to increase. So just because Americans are spending a little bit more money than before really doesn’t mean much of anything. As you will see below, there are a whole bunch of other signs that the U.S. economy is in very, very serious trouble.
Any “recovery” that the U.S. economy is experiencing is illusory and will be quite temporary. The entire financial system of the United States is falling apart, and the powers that be can try to patch it up and prop it up for a while, but in the end this thing is going to come crashing down.
But as obvious as that may seem to most of us, there are still quite a few people out there that are absolutely convinced that the U.S. economy will fully recover and will soon be stronger than ever.
So the following are 25 questions to ask anyone who is delusional enough to believe that this economic recovery is real….
#1) In what universe is an economy with 39.68 million Americans on food stamps considered to be a healthy, recovering economy? In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011. Is a rapidly increasing number of Americans on food stamps a good sign or a bad sign for the economy?
#2) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005. So can you please explain again how the U.S. real estate market is getting better?
#3) The Mortgage Bankers Association just announced that more than 10 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment in the January-March period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago. Do you think that is an indication that the U.S. housing market is recovering?
#4) How can the U.S. real estate market be considered healthy when, for the first time in modern history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together?
#5) With the U.S. Congress planning to quadruple oil taxes, what do you think that is going to do to the price of gasoline in the United States and how do you think that will affect the U.S. economy?
#6) Do you think that it is a good sign that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, says that “terrible cuts” are urgently needed in order to avoid a complete financial disaster in his state?
#7) But it just isn’t California that is in trouble. Dozens of U.S. states are in such bad financial shape that they are getting ready for their biggest budget cuts in decades. What do you think all of those budget cuts will do to the economy?
#8) In March, the U.S. trade deficit widened to its highest level since December 2008. Month after month after month we buy much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Wealth is draining out of the United States at an unprecedented rate. So is the fact that the gigantic U.S. trade deficit is actually getting bigger a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?
#9) Considering the fact that the U.S. government is projected to have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010, and considering the fact that if you went out and spent one dollar every single second it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars, how can anyone in their right mind claim that the U.S. economy is getting healthier when we are getting into so much debt?
#10) The U.S. Treasury Department recently announced that the U.S. government suffered a wider-than-expected budget deficit of 82.69 billion dollars in April. So is the fact that the red ink of the U.S. government is actually worse than projected a good sign or a bad sign?
#11) According to one new report, the U.S. national debt will reach 100 percent of GDP by the year 2015. So is that a sign of economic recovery or of economic disaster?
#12) Monstrous amounts of oil continue to gush freely into the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts are already projecting that the seafood and tourism industries along the Gulf coast will be devastated for decades by this unprecedented environmental disaster. In light of those facts, how in the world can anyone project that the U.S. economy will soon be stronger than ever?
#13) The FDIC’s list of problem banks recently hit a 17-year high. Do you think that an increasing number of small banks failing is a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?
#14) The FDIC is backing 8,000 banks that have a total of $13 trillion in assets with a deposit insurance fund that is basically flat broke. So what do you think will happen if a significant number of small banks do start failing?
#15) Existing home sales in the United States jumped 7.6 percent in April. That is the good news. The bad news is that this increase only happened because the deadline to take advantage of the temporary home buyer tax credit (government bribe) was looming. So now that there is no more tax credit for home buyers, what will that do to home sales?
#16) Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently told the U.S. government that they are going to need even more bailout money. So what does it say about the U.S. economy when the two “pillars” of the U.S. mortgage industry are government-backed financial black holes that the U.S. government has to relentlessly pour money into?
#17) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves just one lawsuit, one really bad traffic accident or one very serious illness away from financial ruin. With so many Americans living on the edge, how can you say that the economy is healthy?
#18) The mayor of Detroit says that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere around 50 percent. So can the U.S. really be experiencing an economic recovery when so many are still unemployed in one of America’s biggest cities?
#19) Gallup’s measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Do you think that is a good trend or a bad trend?
#20) One new poll shows that 76 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession. So are the vast majority of Americans just stupid or could we still actually be in a recession?
#21) The bottom 40 percent of those living in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. So is Barack Obama’s mantra that “what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street” actually true?
#22) Richard Russell, the famous author of the Dow Theory Letters, says that Americans should sell anything they can sell in order to get liquid because of the economic trouble that is coming. Do you think that Richard Russell is delusional or could he possibly have a point?
#23) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. In fact, that was almost twice the level of a year earlier. Does that look like a good trend to you?
#24) In March, the price of fresh and dried vegetables in the United States soared 49.3% - the most in 16 years. Is it a sign of a healthy economy when food prices are increasing so dramatically?
#25) 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 – a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005. So shouldn’t we at least wait until the number of Americans filing for bankruptcy is not setting new all-time records before we even dare whisper the words “economic recovery”?
YouTube - Michael Savage- Stupidest Caller Ever- Welfare Money From Obama Stash, Illegal Aliens; Open Borders!
YouTube - Michael Savage- Stupidest Caller Ever- Welfare Money From Obama Stash, Illegal Aliens; Open Borders!
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE STUPIDEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH !!!!!!!!!
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE STUPIDEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH !!!!!!!!!
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Traficant sticks to his guns about Israel with Hannity
Traficant sticks to his guns about Israel with Hannity
All In Just One Hospital
All In Just One Hospital
All In Just One Hospital
5-23-10
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas , Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day.)
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital they do. "
Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE.
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland . Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost$200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income.
An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband.
The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was
apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicantswho speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal
with this.
Check this for yourself...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp
All In Just One Hospital
5-23-10
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas , Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.
On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day.)
A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.
According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.
The average patient in Parkland in maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.
OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital they do. "
Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE.
The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland . Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost$200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)
"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?
Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right; she's technically a US citizen.)
These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.
Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income.
An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job.. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)
There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegal's get it all free! But U.S. citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?
As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband.
The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was
apparently a great injustice to her.
In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicantswho speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.
Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal
with this.
Check this for yourself...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp
your name .why is it all in CAPS who is your name ?
WHY IS YOUR NAME IN "CAPS" ?? WHAT IS YOUR NAME ??
Friday, May 21, 2010
MEXICO IMMIGRATION LAWS read by Mark Levin from FactReal.com (5/19/2010)
MEXICO IMMIGRATION LAWS read by Mark Levin from FactReal.com (5/19/2010)
Watch How Mercury Kills The Brain - Vaccines & Autism
How Mercury Kills The Brain: Vaccines & Autism
Congressman Slams “Outrage” Of Calderon Lecture On Immigration
Congressman Slams “Outrage” Of Calderon Lecture On Immigration
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
Following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s attack on the second amendment and his lecturing on American immigration policy, Congressman Tom McClintock described Calderon’s behavior as an “outrage” during a speech on the House floor yesterday, pointing out that America treats immigrants far better than the brutal way they are dealt with in Mexico.
During a series of speeches, including one in front of Congress, Calderon attacked Arizona’s decision to enforce its immigration policy while also calling upon lawmakers to re-enact the assault weapons ban in a bid to disarm the American people as they are integrated into the North American Union system.
President Obama treasonously supported Calderon’s message by alarmingly proclaiming, “We are not defined by our borders,” during a speech on the White House lawn.
McClintock later reacted by labeling Calderon’s rhetoric an “outrage” and slammed the Mexican President for holding American sovereignty in contempt while Democrats in Congress cheered him on.
McClintock said Calderon should, “Abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other’s domestic debates.”
“Unlike Mexico’s immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans. Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation,” said McClintock.
Watch the clip
The Congressman pointed out that immigration has been used not to assimilate newcomers as American citizens, but to cause division amongst racial and ethnic lines while seeking to “elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.”
McClintock quoted the following words from President Teddy Roosevelt, which perfectly illustrate how the original boundaries of immigration policy have been completely violated, with illegal immigrants now seeing themselves as radicalized Mexicans who subscribe to a racist liberation theology, not assimilated Americans who want to integrate with their neighbors.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
However, the federal government and local authorities have not only allowed illegal immigrants to fly the Mexican flag on public property while spending millions of dollars every year translating official documents into Spanish, but they have also sat back as illegals engage in provocations by claiming that the U.S. is Mexico while tearing down American flags, as was highlighted by the recent case in Morgan Hill California, where students were kicked off campus and disciplined for the crime of wearing T-shirts which featured American flags.
Moreover, in schools such as New Hampshire Estates Elementary School, we see children admitting their parents are illegal aliens while dancing around a Mexican flag with the First Lady, Michelle Obama.
These two examples alone, and there are a myriad of others, clearly show that Teddy Roosevelt’s caution to immigrants entering the U.S., that there is only room for one flag and one language, has been completely disregarded as hordes of immigrants pumped up with racist La Raza doctrines of radical liberation theology pour into the U.S. and claim it to be Mexico.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 21, 2010
Following Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s attack on the second amendment and his lecturing on American immigration policy, Congressman Tom McClintock described Calderon’s behavior as an “outrage” during a speech on the House floor yesterday, pointing out that America treats immigrants far better than the brutal way they are dealt with in Mexico.
During a series of speeches, including one in front of Congress, Calderon attacked Arizona’s decision to enforce its immigration policy while also calling upon lawmakers to re-enact the assault weapons ban in a bid to disarm the American people as they are integrated into the North American Union system.
President Obama treasonously supported Calderon’s message by alarmingly proclaiming, “We are not defined by our borders,” during a speech on the White House lawn.
McClintock later reacted by labeling Calderon’s rhetoric an “outrage” and slammed the Mexican President for holding American sovereignty in contempt while Democrats in Congress cheered him on.
McClintock said Calderon should, “Abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other’s domestic debates.”
“Unlike Mexico’s immigration law — which is brutally exclusionary — the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans. Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation,” said McClintock.
Watch the clip
The Congressman pointed out that immigration has been used not to assimilate newcomers as American citizens, but to cause division amongst racial and ethnic lines while seeking to “elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.”
McClintock quoted the following words from President Teddy Roosevelt, which perfectly illustrate how the original boundaries of immigration policy have been completely violated, with illegal immigrants now seeing themselves as radicalized Mexicans who subscribe to a racist liberation theology, not assimilated Americans who want to integrate with their neighbors.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
However, the federal government and local authorities have not only allowed illegal immigrants to fly the Mexican flag on public property while spending millions of dollars every year translating official documents into Spanish, but they have also sat back as illegals engage in provocations by claiming that the U.S. is Mexico while tearing down American flags, as was highlighted by the recent case in Morgan Hill California, where students were kicked off campus and disciplined for the crime of wearing T-shirts which featured American flags.
Moreover, in schools such as New Hampshire Estates Elementary School, we see children admitting their parents are illegal aliens while dancing around a Mexican flag with the First Lady, Michelle Obama.
These two examples alone, and there are a myriad of others, clearly show that Teddy Roosevelt’s caution to immigrants entering the U.S., that there is only room for one flag and one language, has been completely disregarded as hordes of immigrants pumped up with racist La Raza doctrines of radical liberation theology pour into the U.S. and claim it to be Mexico.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates
101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates
101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates
Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: "Do you think there is still time to turn it around?"
When you ask, "Still time before what?" they usually reply: "Before total disaster overtakes us!"
For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: "Yes, there is still time, but not much."
The next question is: "What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?"
The answer is: "Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings."
Identifying Constitutional Candidates
"But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?"
If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.
However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.
What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?
We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.
As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the "Making of America" seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The eight hours required for this study (thirteen on audio or video tape) may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
Questions on General Principles
1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?
The founders said it is in the people "by God's own allowance." No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives.
2. In what way are "all men created equal?"
All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.
3. What is an inalienable right?
An inalienable right is one which comes as an "endowment from the Creator" and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.
4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
5. What did the Founders mean by the "pursuit of happiness?"
This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.
6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.
7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?
The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence or one's job, etc.
8. What is the purpose of government?
The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law," which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.
The American Structure of Government
9. What is a democracy?
A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.
10. What is a republic?
A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.
11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?
Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people's elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).
12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?
Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.
The Task of Controlling Power
13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?
Government is "force" which Washington compared to "fire" and said government is a "dangerous servant" and a "fearful master." Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.
14. How should the powers of government be separated?
First of all, the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the state level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders' pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all.
15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?
Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?
Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders' original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.
17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?
The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally "programmed" to death--and taxes have skyrocketed.
Separating Power Horizontally
18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?
There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government "coordinated but never consolidated." This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.
19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?
The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.
Americans Experiment with Another System
20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?
Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.
21. What has caused this?
Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a "redistribution of the wealth" by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies "unconstitutional."
22. What has been the result?
These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples' earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.
23. Has socialism or "collectivism" worked anywhere in the world?
Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as communism, nazism, and fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called "peaceful" forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor's edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.
24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?
They did it by setting up a "limited" form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the "chains" of the Constitution.
American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders' Success Formula
25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?
Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as "usurpation."
26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?
Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.
27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?
Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was "tax, tax -- spend, spend -- elect, elect!"
28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, "We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!"
The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to "soak the rich," but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.
29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a "New World Order"?
Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.
30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?
Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or secretary of state who has followed a policy of "interventionism," has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.
Presidential Violations of the Constitution
31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the Federal Register?
In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make "laws" for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.
32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?
This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.
Judicial Violations of the Constitution
33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?
This is called "judicial legislation." This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.
34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.
35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?
Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the states would have undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.
Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies
36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as "laws?"
No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called "administrative law." The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.
Blurring the Founders' Division of Labor Between
the States and the Federal Government
37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?
James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?
If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.
39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.
40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?
The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.
41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?
The Tenth Amendment
42. Then how did the government get so much power?
The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.
Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses
43. What was the Butler Case?
In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.
44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?
This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the "free flow" of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.
Some Practical Questions
45. Doesn't the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?
No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.
46. What is a modern example of the Founders' original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?
No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn't even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.
Questions About Money and the Budget
47. What happened to the Federal budget after the "Butler" case?
In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1996, the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than 1.6 trillion dollars!
48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?
Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.
The National Debt
49. How much is the national debt today?
The U.S. National Debt is nearly five trillion dollars requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of all wars we have ever fought. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to eleven trillion.
50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?
The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.
51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?
The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation's inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.
What About Welfare?
52. But hasn't much of our money been spent for welfare and other important social programs?
This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government's multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.
53. But didn't the government have to try to do something to help those in need?
The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.
54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?
The existence of a need on a state level does not create a power on the federal level. When a state fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.
The National Debt and Foreign Aid
55. In view of America's tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?
This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program, similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.
Social Security
56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?
The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as "payments" if he qualifies under the government's arbitrary poverty level.
57. Is there a better way?
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.
58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.
59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.
60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.
61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a "police state." This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.
62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.
63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No.Tariffs and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!
64. Is a national sales tax constitutional?
Yes, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government may assess a sales (excise) tax as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.
65. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.
Federal Regulatory Agencies
66. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.
67. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.
68. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to "police" the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
69. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.
70. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?
What About the Government Setting Up
Business Operations?
71. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.
72. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses.
73. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.
What Caused the "Sagebrush Rebellion?"
74. Shouldn't all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
75. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.
76. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
77. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.
78. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the "Sagebrush Rebellion," but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.
What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?
79. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a "wilderness reserve?"
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.
80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national forests.
81. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.
What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?
82. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.
Problems with Government Monopolies
83. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the "regulation of commerce" to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.
84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.
85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.
The National Labor Relations Board
86. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of federal usurpation occurred during the "New Deal" days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
The Department of HEW
87. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from federal jurisdiction by the Founders.
88. About how much of the federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 600 billion dollars in 1996 which is approximately 1/3 of the federal budget.
89. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.
The Equal Rights Amendment
90. Why was the Equal Rights Amendment defeated by the states?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have, such as the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only have destroyed this right but also eliminated many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.
Morality and Government
91. Do you believe that people's morals will affect their ability to enjoy freedom and liberty under the constitution?
Benjamin Franklin said: " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
John Adams was equally explicit: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams added a final warning: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
Abortions
92. Does the Supreme Court have authority to hear cases involving moral issues such as abortion?
No. The original Constitution allowed the federal courts to hear only eleven kinds of cases, clearly outlined in Article III.
93. Is federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.
The Gold and Silver Standard
94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.
The Federal Department of Education
95. Is it Constitutional for federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.
96. Should the members of state and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the states to pass a law requiring the educators in state associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.
Taxes on Dividends
97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company's earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.
Control of Firearms
98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the federal government to "infringe" on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.
The Modern Method of Electing Senators
99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and were the watchdogs of states rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the state legislatures to appoint senators. and therefore required senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the senators frequently ignoring states rights in an effort to get more money for their states just as congressmen do. States' rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the Founders built into the Constitution.
The BLM
100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the states when they were admitted into the Union.
Government Expenses
101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.
Conclusion
Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.
It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.
It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
http://www.nccs.net/101questions.html
101 Constitutional Questions To Ask Candidates
Because so many millions of Americans finally realize that something is seriously wrong with the way the government is handling our affairs, people are continually asking: "Do you think there is still time to turn it around?"
When you ask, "Still time before what?" they usually reply: "Before total disaster overtakes us!"
For those who wonder about such things the answer is this: "Yes, there is still time, but not much."
The next question is: "What can we do to get America turned around and regain our national sanity?"
The answer is: "Elect a President and a majority in Congress who still believe in the Constitution and will fight to return America to her original moorings."
Identifying Constitutional Candidates
"But how can you tell when a candidate for political office is really a Constitutionalist?"
If the candidate is already in office he will have a voting record which will clearly show whether or not he is a Constitutionalist. Several organizations monitor the Congress and publish the results.
However, if the candidate is a newcomer to politics you will have to test his knowledge of Constitutional principles by asking a few questions.
What Kind of Questions Should Be Asked?
We are listing a few of the many questions which might be addressed to a candidate in order to determine whether or not he stands for those basic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers.
As we go through these questions you will note that nearly all of them can be easily answered by anyone who has attended the "Making of America" seminars on the Constitution. In the text for this course the answers to all of these questions are explained and documented. If your candidate does not know the answers, invite him to take a Constitutional seminar at the earliest possible date. The eight hours required for this study (thirteen on audio or video tape) may turn out to be the best investment in political orientation he could find. No American should run for public office until he has studied the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
Questions on General Principles
1. Under the Constitution, who has the sovereign authority to govern?
The founders said it is in the people "by God's own allowance." No branch or agency of the government should be allowed to operate in violation of the expressed will of the people. Their collective will is set forth in the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives.
2. In what way are "all men created equal?"
All humanity are equal in three ways: 1. equal before God, 2. equal before the law, 3. equal in their rights. In all other respects people are different.
3. What is an inalienable right?
An inalienable right is one which comes as an "endowment from the Creator" and cannot be violated without coming under the judgment of God.
4. Which inalienable rights were listed in the Declaration of Independence?
The Declaration of Independence lists the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
5. What did the Founders mean by the "pursuit of happiness?"
This is a collective phrase designed to cover all of the other inalienable rights.
6. Give an example of an inalienable right which is essential to the pursuit of happiness.
The Founders believed, for example, that human happiness requires that each of us enjoy the right to acquire, develop and dispose of property. They believed that without the protection of property rights, all other rights are placed in serious jeopardy.
7. What are some of the other inalienable rights?
The inalienable rights of mankind include such things as the right of self government; the right of human beings to beget their own kind; the right of parents to rear their children free from outside interference (unless there is criminal abuse or neglect); the right to freedom of belief; the right to freedom of speech; the right to assemble; the right to petition; the right to change residence or one's job, etc.
8. What is the purpose of government?
The Founders said the basic reason for creating a government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law," which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty. and well-being of the people.
The American Structure of Government
9. What is a democracy?
A democracy is a government wherein decisions are made by the masses of the people rather than by elected representatives.
10. What is a republic?
A republic is a system in which the laws are passed and decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.
11. Why did Jefferson call the American system a democratic-republic?
Because the system allows the masses of qualified voters to participate in the election of their officials (democracy) and then the people's elected representatives enact the laws and administer the affairs of the people under majority rule but with the equal protection of individual rights (a republic).
12. Is it a mistake, therefore, to call the United States a democracy?
Yes. The only part of the American system which is borrowed from "democracy" is the popular election of government officials. Except for this, the Founders strongly emphasized the republican aspects of the American system. A republic places the responsibility for sound government and decision-making on the people's elected representatives rather than allowing the fluctuating and superficial emotions of the people to override law and order or the rights of minorities. The classical example of government functioning on republican principles and prevailing over "pure democracy" would be the case of a sheriff protecting a prisoner against a lynch mob.
The Task of Controlling Power
13. Why is separation of power safer than concentration of power?
Government is "force" which Washington compared to "fire" and said government is a "dangerous servant" and a "fearful master." Power should be dispersed among the people where they can keep it under control.
14. How should the powers of government be separated?
First of all, the Founders wanted political power separated vertically. They considered the principal power base of society to be the family. However, there are a few things which a community of families can provide better than a single family (police, fire, water, utilities, etc.). Power to perform these functions is therefore delegated to the community. Then there are a few things which groups of communities can do better than the single community. These tasks are assigned to the higher level of the county. There are also a few things that a group of counties can do better than a single county and these are assigned to the state level. The Founders also discovered that there were certain matters dealing with foreign affairs, problems of war and peace, imports, etc. which need to be handled in behalf of all the states. These responsibilities are therefore assigned to the Federal Government. It should be noted that the Founders' pyramid of power provided that the greatest number of responsibilities should rest with the family. Only a few responsibilities were assigned to the levels of government above the family and the Federal Government was to have the least of all.
15. What remedies did the Founders provide if government officials violated the channel of power assigned to them?
Administrative pressures from other departments are provided and if his offenses are serious he can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.
16. Why did the Founders want the powers of government to flow from the bottom up rather than the top down?
Jefferson stated that a political unit governs best which governs least. In other words, the services which the people need from government are relatively simple and when circumstances are normal the people like to conduct their affairs with as little interference from the government as possible. Consequently, in the Founders' original plan for a happy and prosperous society, the functions of government were designed to be relatively simple and remarkably cheap.
17. Then why do we have such a complicated and expensive government today?
The professional politicians learned that in a war, depression, or a serious crisis, the people will endure higher taxes and a far greater concentration of authority on the higher levels of government. Certain politicians therefore set out to exploit every emergency as an excuse for the acquiring of more power. During most of the twentieth century ambitious politicians trumpeted the message that the government can solve practically all problems better than the people. Today, as a result, Americans are being literally "programmed" to death--and taxes have skyrocketed.
Separating Power Horizontally
18. How did the Founders separate power horizontally?
There are three functions of government at each level of society. One function is to make the law, another is to administer the law and a third is to interpret the law. These are all on the same horizontal level and are referred to as the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. The Founders wanted these three functions to be separated into equal, independent departments. At the same time, they wanted to coordinate these functions so that one department could not function without the other two. Each department was therefore assigned to serve as a check on the others. The idea of the Founders was to have these functions of government "coordinated but never consolidated." This was one of the most ingenious devices contributed by the Founders.
19. What happens if the separation of powers breaks down either vertically or horizontally?
The Founders warned that if the vertical separation of power should ever break down so that all power began to be concentrated in Washington, there would be a severely arrogant abuse of the people by government officials. They also said that if the legislative executive and judicial departments failed to act as a check on each other, there would be tyranny and the people would lose their freedom. For more than one full generation this is what has been happening.
Americans Experiment with Another System
20. Is the consolidation of government functions the trend today?
Yes. Consolidation of power is gravitating toward Washington at a pace which would have greatly alarmed the Founders.
21. What has caused this?
Beginning around 1900 certain wealthy influential groups lost confidence in the original American system and began propagandizing the people into believing that a "redistribution of the wealth" by the government would greatly improve the American life style. This theory of economics with its concentration of political power at the center of government is usually referred to as socialism. Samuel Adams vigorously warned against these principles. He said socialism violates equal protection of rights and completely destroys the concept of limited government. In fact, he said the Founders had done everything possible to make these collectivist policies "unconstitutional."
22. What has been the result?
These policies launched the United States on a wild and dizzy trajectory which has resulted in run-away inflation; a huge burden of national debt; taxes which are devouring nearly half of the peoples' earning power; a serious invasion of individual rights; and a virtual collapse of states rights.
23. Has socialism or "collectivism" worked anywhere in the world?
Unfortunately, it has not. In fact, the militant forms of socialism such as communism, nazism, and fascism have caused more wars and shed the blood of more human beings than any system of government in the history of the world. Even the so-called "peaceful" forms of socialism such as Democratic Socialism and Fabian Socialism, have proven counter-productive and have continuously crept along the razor's edge of perpetual bankruptcy. Americans have sent over hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid trying to help the socialist nations survive. Now we are bordering on bankruptcy ourselves.
24. How did the Founders structure the American system so that socialism would be unconstitutional?
They did it by setting up a "limited" form of government with carefully enumerated powers. Jefferson called these limitations on government the "chains" of the Constitution.
American Leaders Began to Abandon the Founders' Success Formula
25. Does this mean Theodore Roosevelt was In error when he said the President could do anything except that which the Constitution forbids?
Yes, he was turning the Constitution upside down. The President and all other officials of the government are only allowed to do that which is expressly authorized. The Founders referred to any exercise of power outside of these Constitutional chains as "usurpation."
26. Was President Woodrow Wilson also in error when he said the United States should become involved in the political and economic affairs of the world?
Yes. The Founders had continually warned against foreign, entangling alliances. The Founders believed the United States should try to be friendly with all nations, but beholden to none. They knew that political interdependence leads to the development of power blocs, and power blocs ultimately lead to war.
27. Was Franklin D. Roosevelt in error when he structured the New Deal?
Yes. The New Deal was structured on collectivist principles designed by such men as Harry Hopkins who saw socialism as a tremendous vehicle to acquire power over the people and their resources. His famous formula was "tax, tax -- spend, spend -- elect, elect!"
28. Was Lyndon Johnson in error when he said, "We will take from the haves and give to the have nots!"
The Founders would certainly have called it an error. There is absolutely no Constitutional authority for the government to engage in any such invasion of private property rights. Throughout history it has always been popular for governments to pretend they are going to "soak the rich," but such programs have always ended up with government officials using this newly acquired power to violate the inalienable rights of both rich and poor. It is a political trick to build bigger government with bigger debts and bigger taxes.
29. Was President Nixon in error when he continually tried to involve the United States in a "New World Order"?
Yes. It is extremely dangerous for Americans to enter into foreign engagements where decisions for Americans are made by non-Americans. The Founders believed that we should coordinate but never consolidate our free and independent society with foreign nations.
30. Was President Carter in error when he began meddling in domestic affairs of foreign nations?
Yes. The Monroe Doctrine specifically promised that the United States would never undertake to meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries. Any president or secretary of state who has followed a policy of "interventionism," has operated outside of his Constitutional authority.
Presidential Violations of the Constitution
31. What about executive orders which are treated as laws after being published in the Federal Register?
In the eyes of the Founders these would be considered unconstitutional. The President can issue executive orders to the administrative branches of government under his supervision but he has no authority whatever to make "laws" for the people since the Constitution assigns that authority exclusively to the Congress. An act of Congress could stop this whole illegal procedure.
32. What about executive agreements between the President and heads of foreign governments?
This procedure is also unconstitutional. The Founders provided that all agreements with foreign nations must have the advice and consent of the Senate. Since American Presidents began holding summit conferences with the heads of foreign governments, they have been entering into secret engagements which very often never see the light of day let alone receive the advice and consent of the Senate. Each year there are many more executive agreements signed by the President than there are treaties ratified by the Senate.
Judicial Violations of the Constitution
33. What about new laws laid down by the Supreme Court?
This is called "judicial legislation." This occurs when the Supreme Court creates a new law by pretending to interpret an old one. In the Federalist Papers the Founders specifically warned against this type of arrogance by the Supreme Court.
34. How is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the Constitution?
The Founders made it very clear that the Supreme Court would be violating its assignment if it substituted its own opinions for that of the Founders. Until recently it has always been an established principle that the Constitution must be interpreted the way the Founders intended it and not according to the whims or caprice of modern justices.
35. Is there any way to curb the Supreme Court from exercising its power in an unconstitutional manner?
Yes. A Judicial Reform Amendment would allow any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate. A decision could also be overturned by concurring resolutions from three-fourths of the State Legislatures. Had this procedure been available the states would have undoubtedly outlawed forced busing of school children at least twenty years ago.
Unconstitutional Edicts of Regulatory Agencies
36. Is it Constitutional for an agency of the Federal Government to write rules and regulations which are enforced in the courts as "laws?"
No. This is a recent development in governmental procedures. It is called "administrative law." The Founders provided no power in any agency of government to make laws except the Congress.
Blurring the Founders' Division of Labor Between
the States and the Federal Government
37. How did the Founders intend to divide the problem-solving powers between the States and the Federal Government?
James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers, No. 45. He wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
38. How did the Founders know whether to assign a problem to the State or Federal Governments?
If a problem involved foreign relations (war, peace, treaties, etc.) or matters which could not be handled by any one of the states (regulating interstate commerce, crimes on the high seas, navigable waters, naturalization, etc.) it went to the Federal Government. All other powers were retained by the States.
39. How many areas of power were ultimately assigned to the Federal Government?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government twenty powers. These are set forth in Article I, Section 8.
40. What if the Federal Government thinks it needs more power?
The government cannot legally exercise any powers except those which are specifically granted to it by the Constitution. The only way Washington can get any additional legitimate power is by an amendment.
41. Where does it say that the Federal Government is specifically restricted from exercising any power not granted to it by the States?
The Tenth Amendment
42. Then how did the government get so much power?
The dominating arrogance of the Federal Government today came about primarily through three channels: 1. outright usurpation of power, 2. an edict by the Supreme Court in the Butler Case in 1936 reversing the original meaning in the Welfare Clause, and 3. distorting the Commerce Clause as the means of shattering the restrictive chains of the Constitution and expanding federal jurisdiction into hundreds of areas never intended by the Founders.
Subverting Two Important Constitutional Clauses
43. What was the Butler Case?
In this decision, Justice Roberts included in his opinion a dictum that the Congress would no longer be restricted in its taxing and spending powers so long as it was in the "general welfare" of the nation. This immediately opened the U.S. Treasury to looting for all kinds of give-away programs which politicians began using to buy votes.
44. In what way has the Commerce Clause been distorted to give the Federal Government unconstitutional powers?
This clause was simply designed to give the Federal Government sufficient power to insure the "free flow" of commerce so that the States would not interfere with inter-state shipments as they had done in the past. Since 1936 the original intent of the Founders has been expanded to include Federal control over practically everything which affects inter-state commerce either directly or indirectly. This usurpation of authority by Congress (which has been upheld by the Supreme Court), has shattered some of the most important restrictions on Federal intervention in the business and commercial life of the nation.
Some Practical Questions
45. Doesn't the more complex nature of modern society require a far more extensive control of the economy by the Federal Government?
No. The more complex society becomes the more it needs the automatic problem-solving devices of a free-market economy operating with the least possible interference from government. As Adam Smith pointed out, government interference only adds to the complexity of the system and results in a serious deterioration of individual freedom.
46. What is a modern example of the Founders' original success formula solving some of the highly complex problems of a modern society?
No nation could have had a much more complex situation than West Germany right after World War II. Every major city in Germany was bomb-gutted and the people were surviving in basements and make-shift hovels. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany took over in 1949 and immediately initiated the basic economic principles advocated by the Founding Fathers. By using freedom instead of heavy-handed government regulations, West Germany achieved the highest standard of living in Western Europe within eight years. The West Germans were not only fully employed but importing foreign labor besides. Clothing, food and housing were abundant and cheap. West Germany became so prosperous she was the envy of socialized Sweden. It will be recalled that Sweden wasn't even in the war and had boasted of the superiority of her socialist controls. However, in Sweden a young married. couple has to wait ten years to get a one-room apartment because of the government monopoly over housing. It was obvious West Germany had chosen a better way.
Questions About Money and the Budget
47. What happened to the Federal budget after the "Butler" case?
In 1936 (the year of the Butler case) the Federal budget was around six billion dollars. By 1996, the looting of the American taxpayer had pushed the Federal budget to more than 1.6 trillion dollars!
48. Is it Constitutional for the government to spend more money that it takes in?
Yes. The Constitution allows the government to borrow in emergencies. Unfortunately, during the last 50 years Congress has continually found excuses to borrow whether there was an emergency or not. The only way to stop this is to replace the big spenders in Congress with constitutionalists who recognize that we are presently on a disaster course.
The National Debt
49. How much is the national debt today?
The U.S. National Debt is nearly five trillion dollars requiring interest payments which cost more each year than the entire cost of all wars we have ever fought. Future liabilities to which the government is already committed will require taxation of an additional six to eleven trillion.
50. How does the U.S. debt compare with the debts of other nations?
The United States now owes more than all of the rest of the nations of the world combined.
51. Why would the Founders have considered this gigantic indebtedness immoral?
The Founders said that no generation should go so deeply in debt that it becomes guilty of squandering the next generation's inheritance. They said such extravagance is immoral. All past generations tried to pay off all the debts accrued during their time. Ours is the first generation which has deliberately squandered the inheritance of its children.
What About Welfare?
52. But hasn't much of our money been spent for welfare and other important social programs?
This was the main excuse for sky-rocketing taxation and deficit spending. Tragically, however, the money has been squandered primarily to build a vast bureaucracy. It is amazing how many of the government's multibillion dollar social programs have provided only a pittance to trickle down to the poor, the sick and the elderly.
53. But didn't the government have to try to do something to help those in need?
The Founders specifically warned against this type of political deception where the compassion of the people is exploited to build big government and raise taxes. They said that all types of charity and welfare should be handled on the local level where abuses could be quickly detected and corrected.
54. But what if the states do not provide needed services?
The existence of a need on a state level does not create a power on the federal level. When a state fails to fulfill its obligation the pressure should be exerted on the State, not the federal government. Jefferson said there is no way to preserve freedom if all political power gravitates to Washington.
The National Debt and Foreign Aid
55. In view of America's tremendous national debt, why do we continue giving foreign aid to over a 125 countries?
This whole procedure violates the Constitution and common sense. What started out as part of the defense program in the interest of the United States has turned into an international Santa Claus give-away program, similar to the extravagant give-away programs at home. Tens of billions given away each year automatically add to the national debt.
Social Security
56. Is Social Security an insurance plan or a welfare plan?
The Supreme Court has held that it is a welfare plan. This means that it can be terminated at anytime. It also means the government can distribute its proceeds arbitrarily. The contributor to social security payments acquires no rights and receives only what the government condescends to distribute to him as "payments" if he qualifies under the government's arbitrary poverty level.
57. Is there a better way?
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.
58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.
59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.
60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.
61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a "police state." This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.
62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.
63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No.Tariffs and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!
64. Is a national sales tax constitutional?
Yes, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government may assess a sales (excise) tax as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.
65. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.
Federal Regulatory Agencies
66. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.
67. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.
68. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to "police" the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
69. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.
70. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?
What About the Government Setting Up
Business Operations?
71. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.
72. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses.
73. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.
What Caused the "Sagebrush Rebellion?"
74. Shouldn't all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
75. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.
76. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
77. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.
78. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the "Sagebrush Rebellion," but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.
What About Locking Up State Territory As Wilderness Areas?
79. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a "wilderness reserve?"
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.
80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national forests.
81. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.
What About Federal Control of Energy Resources?
82. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.
Problems with Government Monopolies
83. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the "regulation of commerce" to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.
84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.
85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.
The National Labor Relations Board
86. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of federal usurpation occurred during the "New Deal" days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
The Department of HEW
87. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from federal jurisdiction by the Founders.
88. About how much of the federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 600 billion dollars in 1996 which is approximately 1/3 of the federal budget.
89. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.
The Equal Rights Amendment
90. Why was the Equal Rights Amendment defeated by the states?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have, such as the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only have destroyed this right but also eliminated many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.
Morality and Government
91. Do you believe that people's morals will affect their ability to enjoy freedom and liberty under the constitution?
Benjamin Franklin said: " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
John Adams was equally explicit: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams added a final warning: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
Abortions
92. Does the Supreme Court have authority to hear cases involving moral issues such as abortion?
No. The original Constitution allowed the federal courts to hear only eleven kinds of cases, clearly outlined in Article III.
93. Is federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.
The Gold and Silver Standard
94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.
The Federal Department of Education
95. Is it Constitutional for federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.
96. Should the members of state and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the states to pass a law requiring the educators in state associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.
Taxes on Dividends
97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company's earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.
Control of Firearms
98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the federal government to "infringe" on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.
The Modern Method of Electing Senators
99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and were the watchdogs of states rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the state legislatures to appoint senators. and therefore required senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the senators frequently ignoring states rights in an effort to get more money for their states just as congressmen do. States' rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the Founders built into the Constitution.
The BLM
100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the states when they were admitted into the Union.
Government Expenses
101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.
Conclusion
Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.
It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.
It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
http://www.nccs.net/101questions.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)