The Road to Copenhagen Part II: Rise of the Social Engineers

 

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 16, 2009

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required (…). Even though (…) any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren.

As Lord Christopher Monckton pointed out, the Copenhagen conference at the beginning of next month is designed to eliminate national sovereignty in favor of a world government to replace it. With a stroke of the pen all UN-member-states will, by doing so, throw away years of prosperity in order to satisfy the transnational needs of a global elite, hellbent on destroying the last vestiges of freedom around the world in the name of “redistributing wealth”.

Make no mistake, if the ‘world leaders’ now announce they will not swallow this pill just yet, be sure that they will in the months after December. After all, they’ve been ordered to by their masters- who have proven themselves to be both cunning and patient.

After the Club of Rome in the early 1970s outlined its basic premise, that world population must decrease if the earth is to survive, all globalist subdivision started groaning like rusty old engines. In the seventies and part of the eighties, the propaganda was still far from subtle. When one scientist proclaimed that the entire world’s population must shrink to the size of a middle-sized country, another shouted that this won’t do at all, proposing instead to put a halt to new life completely.

Documents such as Ecoscience must be viewed in this bizarre context. Although dripping with eugenic devilry, these publications at least were quite upfront about it, proclaiming their mind-boggling monstrosities for all to see. At this stage, deciphering cryptic environmental texts was hardly necessary. However undesirable the situation, at least we knew exactly what they were up to because they said so to our face.

Today we find ourselves in quite another situation. As public resistance about these dehumanizing proposals grew steadily thanks to an informed Western middle-class, the eugenicists went underground, replacing their foul garments with seemingly fairer outfits.

With the help of UNESCO’s social engineers pouring oil into the machine, the propaganda became more streamlined and smooth throughout the 1990s and the beginning of this century. In the most brilliant move anyone could ever make, an ocean of euphemisms began to engulf the true ambitions of the Malthusians, to the point of classical Orwellian doublespeak and beyond. We are required nowadays to decode the complex linguistic trickery before we can even formulate a move to counter it. A crash course in the unraveling of these euphemisms may help us pierce through this language grid more easily. Bizarrely, the United Nations Population Fund will help us on our way.

In a off-worldly 1999 UNFPA directive- published to make sure journalists will not accidentally slip up and reveal the real deal- the author explains it’s better to rephrase the old grammar when it comes to population control issues:

“The term (“Population control”) is now out of favor with experts in the field, because it implies force- a negative thing to most. (…). To stress the voluntary nature of the actions sought, experts use terms like “stemming”, “stabilizing” or “slowing” population growth. Similarly, “family planning” is preferred to “birth control” a term that dates back to the time of Margaret Sanger’s crusade for women’s rights to use contraceptives.”

To namedrop Margaret Sanger in this context is very much hitting the nail on the head- although to claim she was a real-deal liberator of minds is absurd. Sanger was a eugenicist first and foremost. How did she define birth control in the Birth Control Review, May 1919, page 12?

“More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief aim of birth control.”

The UNFPA directive goes on to say that it’s better to use terms in public communiques such as:

“Birth spacing”, “reproductive health” and “women’s rights”; boosting “sustainable development”; and improving the earth’s “carrying capacity” and the human “quality of life”. These terms stress not sheer population numbers but the broader vision of global well-being.”

As a paper prepared for the UN’s ‘Expert Group Meeting on Population Dynamics and Climate Change’ states:

“everything possible should be done now to ensure that people the world over have access to good reproductive health and that this will be crucial for future generations, in terms of global climate as well as human welfare.”

Remember now, that the phrase “reproductive health” is not only being used to facilitate family planning centers around the globe, but also makes possible such things as portable abortion units- as it does in China for example, where women in the name of “reproductive health” are being offered the finest in abortion services the almighty State has to offer, right to their very doorstep.

“Women’s rights” is another one. It sounds good, no? Who, after all, would argue the right of women to do whatever they so please? The next line in UNESCO technical papers which usually follows goes something like this: “Climate change is a women’s rights issue”. Or, as one publication describes it: “The threats of climate change are not gender-neutral.”

“Women are key health, education, economic and resource managers”, states also the UN’s report of the international workshop on population-poverty-environment linkages. “They, and their children, are also those most likely to experience disproportionate effects of poverty and environmental stresses. Integrated programming should ensure that women are empowered to play the requisite managerial and decision-making roles. One entry point for linking population and the environment interventions is via coordinated and gender-sensitive environmental activities (e.g., water supply/sanitation or natural resource management) and reproductive health initiatives.”

Here we have it again: “reproductive health”. The juggling of words is an art mastered to perfection by the global elite and their willing underlings, that much is clear. Another important item on the agenda of the social engineers is that of integrating population reduction messages into a range of other, seemingly decoupled subject matters. We have for example a report from the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, encountering a problem while subjecting a group of students to the propaganda:

“Since the launching of a massive population education programme for the schools, the amount of reading materials alone, not to mention visuals and films, has increased enormously. It is therefore necessary to determine what materials to make available to children at different grade levels.”

That’s where the educators come in. Children, UNESCO figures, must be brought within its sphere of influence as soon as possible. Otherwise the parents will guide their futures and that would be detrimental to the plan to transform all humans into good ‘global citizens’.

“We cannot imagine how the people of all nations could move toward a more sustainable world without the contribution of educators from around the globe”, states a 2005 UNESCO technical paper.

“Sustainable world” means a world with just as much people the earth can carry. In 1972, another UNESCO document circulated within transnational circles with the creepy title ‘ Learning to be: the world of education today and tomorrow‘. In this publication, promoting the emergence of a “new man for a new world”, the authors state their purpose:

“The new man must be capable of understanding the global consequences of individual behaviour, of conceiving of priorities and shouldering his share of the joint responsibility involved in the destiny of the human race.”

At the EuroNGO’s annual conference in 2008, the director of information and external relations division of the UN Population Fund was mighty glad that the Malthusians are on the rise again:

“(…) the media spotlight on global population has snapped back on in a way we haven’t seen in some decades. It dimmed when concerns about “overpopulation” last went out of fashion, but those concerns may now be getting a new lease of life.”

They may indeed.

The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome

Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars
November 14, 2009

“(…) Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977

The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.

In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.

In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.

Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.

In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation.

The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite site of humanity.

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft – wealth transfer defined, READ THE TREATY HERE

This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated September 15th.

click for PDF document

Thanks to Alan MacRae for providing it to me. To get an idea of the kinds of things being proposed, I provide it here with some excerpts below. Readers that wish to highlight some other excerpts should do so in comments.

Page 62:

33. Each Party’s national schedule shall include:
(a) A long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway;
(b) A country-driven nationally appropriate mitigation strategy, differentiated in terms of the ambition, timing and scope of its mitigation commitments or actions, which could be, inter alia, project-based, sectoral or economy-wide.
(c) Each Party’s nationally appropriate mitigation strategy shall include:
(i) Except for the least developed countries and small island developing States,
quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, consistent
with its long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction
pathway, subject to regular review; and
(ii) Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation policies and measures to meet its quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, as appropriate, and to support its national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction pathway, subject to regular review.
34. All countries prepare low emission development strategies. Note that further paragraphs would be required to describe in more detail their function and relationship to the national schedules described above and a potential facilitative/matching platform.
35. All Parties shall develop and regularly update and submit information relating to the implementation of their nationally appropriate mitigation strategies. Such information shall be reviewed and verified according to agreed rules and guidelines.
36. All Parties, except for the least developed countries and small island developing States, shall develop and regularly update and submit a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
37. National inventories shall be:
(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and
(b) Submitted, reviewed and verified according to agreed frequencies, rules and guidelines.

===

Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.

15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk assessment, modeling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the spillover effects.] Alternative to paragraph 15:
[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2 in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources, including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

Musings on the Left vs. Right Paradigm

We have been living under fascist oppression for a lot longer than the last 8 years. But 9/11 gave them the perfect crisis to ramp up the fascist initiative. I too am sorry it took me so long to wake up. But I am focused on not allowing the elite power structure keep the middle and lower classes battling over this. False left vs. right paradigm. Our differences over politics should elicit no more a response than our differences over ice cream flavors.

We need to focus on the brotherhood of humanity and unite against the tyrannical forces that keep us oppressed. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is less a conspiracy of the elite, but more a shared set of values. They have grown ever more arrogant, and open about their belief that it is their right and destiny to "oppress" or some of the kinder think "take care of" the little people.

The last 8 years have been horrible, but Obama is just a re-branding of the same fascism. If you look beyond the main stream media at what he has been doing:

• Increasing private military contractors in Iraq, while saying he is pulling troops out of Iraq. (Now the rhetoric has begun that will lead us to invading Iran.)
• Corporate welfare for Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson and Bernanke's cronies to the tune of almost 24 Trillion dollars.
• Proposing giving the Federal Reserve (a private corp., more of the Banksters cronies) full regulatory control over all private industry. (As announced during his wall street speech in mid Sept.)
• His world apology tour (even if you believe we need to apologize) he is destroying national sovereignty and creating a kinder weaker image to the rest of the world.
• He re-signed the patriot act in its entirety.

(All of these facts can be confirmed by doing some light research, start with Google)

What we are witnessing is the fall of Rome engineered by offshore banks. (Over the past 20 years)

We need to divorce ourselves from all left vs. right ideology and just look at the principles of human rights and liberty and rebuild our beliefs. No matter how you felt about Bush; Obama is not the answer, he is beholden to the very same corporate interests as Bush was. Anthony is right, we need to start at a local level and take over local, city and then state governments. Then stand on state rights to keep the FEDs out of our local affairs. The FEDs will try to buy us with subsidies, we need to say NO. And we can infect the government from the ground up.

Take a look at a company called "Healthimagination" this was a company started by GE. Jeff Immelt CEO of GE is on Obama’s economic recovery team. Who is on the board of Healthimagination? None other than Obama’s disgraced health and human services secretary Tom Daschle.

What does Healthimagination do? They are developing EMR (electronic medical record) technology. The same tech that Obama wants as a "crucial part of his healthcare overhaul". Mark my words, when the corp. interests are done with Obama this will be his Halliburton.

Most people don't take the time to research and pay attention past what the main stream media reports.

We are all in the army of Patriots that needs to fight to reclaim our God given, constitutionally enumerated rights. That means God gave EVERY HUMAN BEING these rights, and GOVT has NO AUTHORITY to take them away. The Constitution puts those rights in... writing, and protects us from Government. attempting to take them away. But we have to stand up to both Democrats and Republicans (the political elite influenced by the financial elite) . We need to exercise our rights if we want to keep them. If the government says we cant have freedom of assembly, we need to assemble to send a message, the American people will not tolerate our rights being taken away, no matter how they try to complicate the issues and try to make us believe we are safer without our rights.

Read this repost from the Staten Island Tea Party Blog:

You're In the Army Now.

10/11/09 Frank Santarpia
http://www.teapartysi.com

Maybe you’ve already served, and thought you were done. You’re not.
Or maybe, like me, you were caught up in traveling life’s highway and took America for granted, believing that we were the greatest country in the world and always would be - with or without our help. America didn't need us to do any fighting...
Well, guess what? We’ve been conscripted.
Think about how your personal world – and your country – has been flipped on its head in the last eighteen months or so, starting around the time you realized that Barack Obama could indeed become the Democratic nominee, and hence, might very well assume the helm of the ship of state - the most powerful state in the history of mankind. I suspect that the term for what you felt is “icy shivers.”
It was the stuff of political potboilers: "Our government falls under the control of nefarious characters - bent upon the destruction of the Constitution and the moral tenets that made us great..." This might be the subject of a “gripping” Cold War-era novel, but any such plot rooted in these constructs was purely fictional and always would be.
So we slumbered. And worked. And raised kids. And shook our heads in wonderment as one-by-one, the institutions, morals and values with which we were raised became corrupted and politically incorrect.
“My, my, are they allowed to say that on television? Are they allowed to show that in a movie? I can’t say what without offending anyone? Am I really a racist, a xenophobe, a homophobe, unenlightened, misogynistic, uncaring, selfish and condescending? I hadn’t realized…”
While we slept, they crept. While we were engaged in out-of-hand dismissals of their attacks on the innate goodness of our country and political system, or watching the “counterculture revolution” happen from afar with bemused smiles, they worked insidiously and studiously to change our world. We accommodated them by staying busy with just plain making a living, and naively handed over our most precious legacy – our children – to their influence and instruction.
So now we find ourselves under the control of statists, socialists, a few communists, some failed 60’s revolutionaries, radical academics, revisionists, race-baiters and entitlement agitators. And that’s just in the White House.
Congress is really bad, because to all those characters listed above you must add another group: cowards. Lord knows there are plenty of those on Capitol Hill.
At the head of this motley collection sits a man with no qualifications for the job he holds – actually, he wasn’t even qualified for his previous job, and only barely so for the one before that, which was, as Mark Levin calls it, as a back-bencher in the State Senate of Illinois.
He came to office with no accomplishments other than a solid radical upbringing, nurtured by mentors and friends for whom the destruction of the United States was a consummation devoutly to be wished. And devoutly is the way he is following the script.
The time-honored premise that the government which governs least governs best has been shredded in less than a full year. In choosing to believe that human self-interest is greed, our President feels justified in subjecting such self-interest to a test: does it benefit the greater good? That such a philosophy will inevitably lead to a diminishment of personal freedoms and a country ruled by political elites does not concern him. Indeed, it is the goal.
These radicals, who have hijacked the Democratic Party, have already started to put in place the mechanisms by which they will perpetuate their power, including slowly but surely dismantling the guarantees of liberty Americans have taken for granted for more than 200 years. To get their way they will legislate if they can, but if they cannot they will regulate, tax, harass, restrict and intimidate.
They will expand the single, ever-growing constituency that will insure their elections in perpetuity: the entitlement class; the slaves that are beholding to the federal government for their food and shelter, insuring a permanent underclass that will go to the polls as instructed and vote for he or she who will provide their next meal.
Worse still, they will defend their actions by couching them in moral terms. C.S. Lewis said:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

To get their way they will spin the judiciary, ignore the Constitution, and make great use of the mainstream media to convince the people that their goals are lofty, enlightened and necessary.
They will demonize the right and try to control or silence its voices.
They will engage in census shenanigans – in full view of the American public – to re-shape electoral boundaries in a way that will ensure their party’s continued electoral dominance.
They will hammer away at the second amendment and completely bury the tenth.
They will try to create a two-party system in name only, with the Republicans merely providing a convenient cover for their one-party rule.
They will continue to use our own freedoms against us. Inherent in a democracy is the right to dissent, and within that right fulminates the cancer that gave rise to current Administration. Indeed, the free Americans they wish to subjugate are, in many cases, actually trumpeting the rights of the destroyers to do so.
We have met and defeated foreign enemies, and American blood has been spilled for the cause of liberty since the birth of our nation – but we now fight an enemy of a different stripe, an enemy within, and our military cannot help us now. Shouldering the burden of this battle is a task that falls to the citizens.
That would be you. And me. And while this war will not be fought with guns, or by force of arms, it will nevertheless be long, exhausting and brutal.
The challenge we face is real, and it is immediate. The 13th Congressional District of New York is currently represented by a Democrat, a good man but a man who will, when the chips are down, vote with his party on a preponderance of issues. I will not besmirch Congressman McMahon by accusing him of casting his votes for political expediency; I will trust that he has told us the truth when he said his votes are guided by his moral compass.
But his compass and mine point in different directions far too often for me to be comfortable with his continued representation. We are obligated, unless the Congressman does a philosophical about-face, to work against his re-election.
We have laid the groundwork. We have held the Tea Parties, marched on Washington, read the blogs, and watched our numbers grow. That was the easy part; the hard part is yet to come – translating our beliefs into concrete actions, actions that will make a real difference.
Be prepared.

Link to the original post: http://www.teapartysi.com/2009/10/youre-in-army-now.html

Tea Parties: Misunderstood and Vastly Underrated

Elected officials of every political stripe ought to be shaking down to their Gucci loafers and pumps. History is forming and firming up harder than the proverbial brick wall right outside their congressional glass house. Yet they seem utterly oblivious.

Since last April, I've written a few columns on the Tea Parties, but I had never actually attended one in person. I harbored a few misconceptions, formed at a distance through the media's drive-by lens. Being a woman who tends to cower in crowds and who loves the security and solitude of my little office-cloister, I had been content to write based on the observations of others. But an Alabama homemaker-turned-activist, Suzanne Green of Birmingham, pulled me into the bosom of the Tea Party movement along with the Rainy Day Patriots.

And, honey, I'm here to tell you, it's a fiery hot bosom indeed.

Monday, I went to Birmingham and Atlanta and saw for myself. I asked and asked and asked questions of people of all ages, both black and white, male and female, former Republicans and former Democrats, seemingly of very diverse socioeconomic situations, and I even rode the Tea Party Express Bus to interview the insiders. 

So what's a Tea Party?

In a nutshell, the Tea Parties are a visible expression of the widespread rekindling of the love of liberty. This rekindling of freedom's fires seems to be occurring among diverse individuals independently, and then they seek out fired-up others with whom to connect. Among Tea Party participants, there is a demonstrated willingness to actually do something tangible in order to claim those unalienable rights of which our Founders wrote, and for which so many have given their lives in battle.

This may be the movement Americans truly have been waiting for. It's the real deal, the genuine article. It comes from the groundswell of the people, not from the power-broker elites in political, corporate, or religious America. It's middle-class, thoroughly unpretentious, with a good sense of humor and a keen disdain for things like faux Greek columns, tacky props, and professionally written hyperbole. At a Tea Party, you won't find puffed-up hubris or even a tad of the liberally popular it's-all-about-me syndrome.  

The Tea Party messages are clear and strident.

Party operatives? Not welcome. Political candidates?  Keep your mouths shut and your ears open. Prefer a D or an R after your name? Not here, not on our time, or on our dime.

The clear message: This is the people's movement. Outsiders, opportunists, and party pols are vehemently not invited. Want a voice in this groundswell, bottom-up oriented movement? Fine. All comers welcome to pitch in, get involved, stand up to tyranny, and do your own thing. Just don't try to hijack the people's movement for personal gain. Like our grandparents' generation, these folks can spot disingenuousness a mile away. They don't suffer fools or counterfeit passions.

I talked to over fifty Tea Partiers in Birmingham and Atlanta on Monday, and I can honestly say I've never seen such a variety of people from different walks of life, different types of livelihood, and different ways of speaking all in the same place, united in one cause: Throw the bums out.

Out of all the people I spoke with -- every single one -- I did not find a solitary person willing to identify with a political party. "Independent" was the only identifier with which people would agree to be labeled. Some said, "I used to be a Democrat," or "I used to be a Republican," but they invariably put a sharp edge on the words "used to be." The sense of betrayal by politicians is palpable among Tea Partiers.  

If there is a shared ideology among them, it is the one espoused by our Founders, simply put: God and Liberty. "Unalienable rights" was a phrase I heard over and over again.

The only political figures for whom there was a visible shred of professed admiration were Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Joe Lieberman. Sarah Palin was roundly regarded as a Ronald-Reagan-style "rogue." Michele Bachmann was getting lots of kudos for two reasons: her stand against government overreach and her willingness to be public and visceral in her denouncements. Joe Lieberman is becoming the new hero to the Tea Partiers for his willingness to stand alone with the voice of freedom on the health care power-grab. 

When I reminded one woman that President Reagan was a Republican, she declared, "No, he wasn't. He was an American, and the only reason he had to put that R beside his name on the ballot was that they were the least off-the-rails party. But G. W. Bush ruined that for Republicans." 

When I asked her how he had done that, she didn't hesitate. "He spent like he was using Daddy's credit card and made the already-too-big federal government bigger."

The uncompromising message in the Tea Party movement to politicians of all stripes is clear:  You work for us, and you have betrayed our trust. The anger wasn't only about the amount of money spent for unpopular causes, but also against the waste and fraud being perpetrated with hard-earned taxpayer money. Several angered taxpayers stressed the need for term limits to keep opportunistic pols from using public office to enrich themselves. 

When I asked Tea Partiers about expenses for the events, I was hit with one resounding answer: "We pay for everything ourselves." A point made over and over again by various responders was, "There's no ACORN here. We don't soak the taxpayers for our protests." There seemed to be quite a lot of resentment over any groups of protesters using tax dollars to support their personal causes.

I decided to broach the social issues that have dominated so much of the national discourse over the past twenty years: abortion and gay marriage. I found only one opinion among all those I polled: they're state and local issues. The federal government has no business telling all Americans what social standards they can have in their state laws and their schools and their hospitals. "Butt out!" was the ubiquitous answer on social issues from Tea Partiers.

That, of course, brought me to ask about the Supreme Court and its role in deciding such matters for all Americans. One man, a doctor from Huntsville, answered matter-of-factly, "The Supreme Court has become a tyrant, using ideas not in the Constitution and turning them into a weapon of tyranny against the people." 

One table under a canopy was reserved for petition-signing. There were only two. One was a state sovereignty petition and the other was a gun rights petition. A return to the Constitution, as written, seemed to be the overriding demand of the Tea Partiers. 

When I asked whether this was a person's only involvement, nearly all responders said "no" and "not by a long shot." Women readily proclaimed their citizens' committees, their petitions, their phone calls, e-mails, and hand-written letters. Many said they were either precinct captains or otherwise involved in locally forming conservative parties. Others said they had signed up to work for Republicans, but only if they remained true to constitutional, limited government.     

If anyone asked me to adequately describe the Tea Party movement, I would have to reach back into my American civics book to find its root. 

Simply put, the Tea Party movement is 1776 brought back to life. 

Liberty Boys abound, now both black and white, and led in many instances by Liberty Gals. Paul Reveres use hand-held microphones instead of lanterns. Hand-lettered signs replace tar and feathers. Minutemen use the vote in lieu of muskets. The Declaration of Independence is revitalized as a document of proclaimed anti-dependence on government to solve personal problems. The Constitution is celebrated, revered, and yes, thought to be the primary weapon against tyranny. God rests firmly in place as America's only King.

Honey, if you love America and truly desire liberty, then these are the ones you've been waiting for!

It's a movement, all right.  A true red-white-and-blue citizens' movement. 

And it is not likely to fizzle the day after elections are held because these folks are entirely self-motivated.  None were persuaded by political operatives or stipends.  Nor were they given professionally manufactured signs and led by hand to show up at the rally. 

Among the all-American individual ingenuity in the signage department, these were my personal favorites:

Congress get your resumes ready; send them to Chavez & Castro!

Can you imagine what a Fannie & Freddie Medicine would look like?

It's the Constitution, STUPID.

Declaration of Independence, not the Declaration Dependence on Government

Give us liberty, not DEBT!!

And, my own contribution: 

Don't you dare tread on me, honey!!

The spirit of 1776 reigns at Tea Parties. It's awfully hard to argue that there's anything whatsoever un-American about this movement. And while President Obama mocks these crowds of independent American voters as "extremists" and the "tea bag, anti-government" people, he more and more resembles a petulant European monarch who is clueless about the strength of the people's resolve.

When these staunchly independent men and women say, "Don't tread on me!" they seem to mean they're simply not going to stand for much more government tomfoolery and usurpations of power. 

Office-holders beware! They're onto you, and they don't like what they see!

Americans are on the march. Like it or not, they're a force to be reckoned with.  And they're here to stay.

If they succeed, then perhaps the slogan, "Free at last!  Free at last!" will actually mean what it says. Free to succeed, free to fail, free to fall flat on our faces upon our own efforts, without the nanny government capriciously dictating outcomes. Freedom, say the Tea Partiers, means freedom -- period. And to a man and woman, they seem ready to reclaim it, no matter the personal cost.

Now, does America have any leaders capable and humble enough to be led by the people? Answer I got from the Tea Partiers: God will provide. 

Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She blogs at kyleanneshiver.com.

How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds

By Dr. Mercola, www.Mercola.com
As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two basic axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your actions are based.

1. Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or power in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with "assault with a deadly weapon" and have the full resources of our laws behind you.

2. At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law of the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will are on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to protect you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right, but your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.

Article I
In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward their position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing them.

Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as outlined by law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically bring the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them.

The more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely to get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.

Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.

Article 2
All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you may legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment.

How is this? Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was actually forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the school, the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages.

Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for all the adverse consequences of the law.

However, if exception waivers are placed in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, "Well, the parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger."

Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law in this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.

Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary, and you are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.

Article 3
While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in each state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make the proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two ways.

1. Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State Statute Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections. The list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on religious or medical grounds or both.

2. You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job, and it will be sent promptly.

Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact requirements for exemption.

Article 4
There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one you choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your personal convictions.

We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws do vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas where states are small and people continually travel from one to another for business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be accepted.

In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the requested waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall.

The two most valid reasons for medical waiver are "the fear of allergic reaction in a sensitive child" and "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both of these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences, it is up to them to protect the child.

It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or D.O., but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is courteously and properly written, as outlined above.

Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit each state law and often need to be renewed annually.

 

Article 5
The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such waivers in the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide "immunization waivers."

Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars if a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver provisions, you become responsible if you react.

When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical reasons, such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do not show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do what they will with you.

If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here as in the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no one has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.

Rule No. 5: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply to the military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are hiding, the facts of the law.

Article 6
What about international travel? May I go around the world without vaccination?

The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area you wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health servant gives you the "go" (at his discretion).

Thousands travel world-wide each year without shots - so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers have traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor were they ever detained.

It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part 71, Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the basic rule, "No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing so they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and medical."

Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without vaccination. The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be detained temporarily.

Some Important Details
The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are many important little "tricks of the trade" to having your legal requests honored. These will now be discussed.

While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization, most public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are loathe to discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge, volunteer such information.

A top Philadelphia school official was on the radio with the unequivocal statement, "NO SHOTS, NO SCHOOL."

This statement is of course completely counter to state law, with which presumably he is familiar. Such unwarranted dogmatism is common in the people you will encounter. Once the end of their legitimate authority has been reached, they will use their next most powerful weapon - INTIMIDATION.

They will threaten to keep your child out of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. These are all idle threats because they can do none of these thing, if you follow our simple instructions.

 

The basic rules have been given to you, but there are a few important details to be considered if the officials start on this course of unlawful intimidation.

1. You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of your stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor, minister, or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized, it could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a possibility of legal action against you.

2. If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give you a statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won't, their refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your child. If they do (they rarely will) they take the risk of incriminating themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what is specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they are on tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, you are not their servant. If worst comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes you a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for refusal, he will also in a negative way tell you what the accepted exemptions are, and then you can go about meeting them, by one of the routes suggested in this handout.

3. Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No legal parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete lack of concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this simply means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have come to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your children immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but only because you were too concerned with other matters.

4. At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn legal consent. Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both the advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other words, if a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and effective to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and you have not been properly informed. Conversely, it could be argued that non-consent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and advantages of immunizations.

5. What do I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?

   This would be an extremely rare circumstance. But should it happen, you are not left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns. Send notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes the shot (ask your doctor for the address), to the doctor who is to administer the shot, to your school principal,to the school board, and to your local health department.

   In these letters make it clear that since they have refused to give you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what may happen to your child if they force these shots upon him. You then state that you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will consent to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your child may develop from the required shots. Of course none will give you such a guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered potentially highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of parents after such letters have been sent.

That's about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your children. All that has been said in this last section (1 to 5) is also applicable to the military and international travel, if required.

Potpourri of Ammunition
"As long as each individual who opposes vaccines has sincere objections, states them in writing, and signs his name - it is considered legal and proper action and must therefore be honored."

"Since many medical controversies exist surrounding immunization, drugs, and various other medications, it mandates that each individual have the right to control his own decisions and freedom of choice; anything less would be contrary to the constitutional laws that protect the citizens' rights. "

"When you deal with school officials and lawyers, you are playing with legal terminology - move the wrong words around and you get hung." The terminology used in this booklet has worked before and should work again.

"It is important to state your objections in such a way that it complies with your state's exemption provisions. They must then accept your request; if they do not, they are breaking their own law." That is why it is absolutely essential that you know your own state law word for word before submitting your objection.

"According to CDC (the federal Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the risks involved before they consent to vaccines." If they do not do so, it is prima facie evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician.

This regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the patient has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If this is so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory immunization?

Should you ever have to go to court, or what is more likely, to appear before a "kangaroo" court of school and health department officials, here is some class A evidence you might find useful to mention.

• No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory that produced it or the doctor who administered it.

• The U.S. military allows no-nonsense "immunizations waivers."

• There is NO FEDERAL LAW on immunizations. They don't dare. Their lawyers know the consequences.

• Your rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use force against your will.

Most state officials like a nice, stress-free job. When you send in your objections and refuse to fit their ordered world by not having your children immunized, you make waves.

This rocks their quiet existence, and there are only two ways their life can become orderly again: either by forcing you to their will or acquiescing to yours. What you must do to obtain an early waiver is to make the latter the easiest path for them.

At first, however, an attempt will usually be made to bend you to their will by some form of intimidation. Many uninformed parents give in to this tack, and so it is tried again and again.

If you are adequately informed, as a reader of this publication should be, you will let the officials know in no uncertain terms that you understand your rights under the law and will not stand for any such shilly-shallying. Invariably, once they discover you are adamant and acquainted with the state law, your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.

An Acknowledgment
The greatest part of the material on the first four pages is taken from the work of Mrs. Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois. Our staff has rearranged and edited the information, but we wish the full credit for its existence to go to this courageous woman who has for twelve years worked arduously, without compensation, to help her fellow Americans obtain their legal rights.

The following is an example of the state of Illionois law (where I live) relating to immunizations. Illinois, like most states has no philosophical objection, but does have a religious one.

Illinois Administrative Code Title 77: Public Health
Chapter I: Department of Public Health
Subchapter i: Maternal and Child Health
Part 665 Child Health Examination Code
Subpart E: Exceptions

Section 665.510 Objection of Parent or Legal Guardian

Parent or legal guardian of a student may object to health examinations, immunizations, vision, and hearing screening tests, and dental health examinations for their children on religious grounds. If a religious objection is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian detailing such objections must be presented to the local school authority.

General philosophical or moral reluctance to allow physical examinations, immunizations, vision and hearing screening, and dental examinations will not provide a sufficient basis for an exception to statutory requirements.

The parent or legal guardian must be informed by the local school authority of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures per IDPH rules. The Control of Communicable Diseases (77 Ill. Adm. Code 690) at the time such objection is presented.

Section 665.520 Medical Objections

a) Any medical objections to an immunization must be:

1) Made by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches indicating what the medical condition is.

2) Endorsed and signed by the physician on the certificate of child health examination and placed on file in the child's permanent record.

b) Should the condition of the child later permit immunization, this requirement will then have to be met. Parents or legal guardians must be informed of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures when such objection is presented per Section 665.510.