Over 75 percent of us still profess Christianity in America. But, of those who claim Christianity, how many really practice their religion. The Christian symbols are, one by one, being taken from public view. Christians are too willing to turn a blind eye to the self-serving. How long will it be before there are no longer any ruminate left of the Judeo-Christian faith?
Out of all who profess that they follow the Christian faith, less than half really live their faith. Then what is the real National faith? Atheists complain they can’t stomach Christian symbols. They say that even prayer makes them want to hurl. But yet, they have a form of faith themselves. They believe that there is no God; key word ‘believes’.
The First Amendment cannot be dismissed as a part of an outdated document. And is a right for all Americans. Atheists and freethinkers in America are a minority yet their opinions are weightier then the majority. Why? Because the majority fails to use their voice and the atheists don’t. They are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please and readily do so. So where is the Christian’s voice?
There are those who want to push their agendas and feel they are the only ones who should have any rights. Others remain passive and mindless slaves to a system that could care less whether they have any human rights or not. Other religions are unafraid to speak about what they stand for but, on the other hand, a lot of Christians are under guise.
Huffingtonpost.com reported that at a press conference in Turkey, President Obama casually rebuked the old chestnut that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation. "One of the great strengths of the United States," the President said, "is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
Do we consider ourselves a Christian Nation? As you have just read, our President says he doesn’t think of us as one. But, do you? Where is your voice? Where do you stand in the scheme of things? Do you feel that your voice doesn’t matter? Well, it does matter. Don’t succumb to intimidation and harassment from others; you need to make yourself heard loudly.
And what about the silent Jihad happening in America? Because Americans, for the most part, want to give everyone a chance to experience the American dream, we too often close our eyes to the aggressive agenda of Islam. Does Islam embrace the idea that Muslims can 'take Jews and Christians as friends'? No, it considers Christians and Jews as infidels. And in their book infidels must be destroyed. So how can we join forces with them to right injustices and right the wrongs for Human rights?
Wake up America! Where are you voices? Don’t let it fade into the background! Be on the forefront speaking and upholding your rights. Because, if you are not careful and you are not watching, you will wake one morning to be a slave to a Godless regime. As I write this there are those who are working hard to do that very thing.
World net Daily reported that Obama may put Americans under world judges' power. International Criminal Court issues are focus of delegation to The Hague. Obama has dispatched a delegation to The Hague to explore issues involving the United States' possible participation in the International Criminal Court; an organization critics charge could be used to prosecute Americans under international legal standards for actions that are not crimes in the U.S.
The concern was that the ICC doesn't recognize many of the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials, such as the right to a trial by jury and protections against double jeopardy.
"The meeting at The Hague is also in preparation for the Rome Statute's review in May of 2010," Schaefer said. "Mr. Rapp is there to find out if (the 108) member states are interested in amending the document to address U.S. concerns. Ambassador Rapp is there to learn how substantial the barriers to the U.S. joining the court actually are."
We, as Christians, will not be recognized nor will our concerns. We will not even be a small voice because our voice will be drowned out by the beat of a world focused on complete and total control of its citizens. Rome Statutes are communistic at best. Don’t expect any compassion or protections.
Are we a Christian Nation? I dare say, I don’t think we are any longer. We once were more watchful and jealous over our freedoms, but no more. We let down our guard and laid away every weapon in our quest to be fare. Is it too late? Only history will bare the truths of our era.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S. Sovereignty apparently set aside as agency exempted from law
Bob Unruh from World Net Daily reported that a little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them," he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
"In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves," they wrote.
"When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement," they said.
"This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests," ThreatsWatch reported.
But with Obama's change, "It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure."
At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol's headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn't much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail.
The court was introduced to the U.S. when President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 1998. But President George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out in 2003 over concerns that the ICC might prosecute American soldiers for war-crime charges coming from the U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The concern was that the ICC doesn't recognize many of the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials, such as the right to a trial by jury and protections against double jeopardy.
"The meeting at The Hague is also in preparation for the Rome Statute's review in May of 2010," Schaefer said. "Mr. Rapp is there to find out if (the 108) member states are interested in amending the document to address U.S. concerns. Ambassador Rapp is there to learn how substantial the barriers to the U.S. joining the court actually are."
Laney admitted it was a change in U.S. direction that prompted the trip.
"The decision to send Ambassador Rapp reflects the commitment of this administration to engage the international community on issues that affect our foreign policy interests," Andy Laney of the U.S. State Department said.
Cyndi’s Veiw:
Because Obama has elected to do this, American citizens can be prosecuted under International Court by world Judges. We no longer have a corner of freedom in the world. We will not know what laws we are breaking because the World Court doesn’t recognize our Constitution and laws that preserve common human rights.
We, as an unwilling party, joined the One World Government by the hand of Obama. Now, by that same hand, we will be part of a World Court. What will be next?
What about war crimes? We may have a problem if another country decides to prosecute soldiers of our nation because they were only following orders during wartime. You’re going to have soldiers that will refuse to do their jobs in fear of prosecution at a later date.
As I have stated in the past, Transnationalism is in play in our nation and nations around the world. If you have been following the process of Obama’s change since his beginning, you’ll see his socialized economics is his passion. And if you connect the dots you’ll see socialism and transnationalism are bedfellows who then produce globalization. They snatch away human’s right.
There are no boundaries in transnationalism. None of this is going to be a voluntary choice for the people of America. Clearly the fact remains this International body, Interpol Enforcement, is above our highest law and that includes our Constitution.
The Interpol police have diplomatic immunity. So, just say there are dirty cops among them; there will be no consequences for their crimes. Who will they answer to except the World Court? We will have little choice at any rate but to comply to their judgments because we will not know what laws we have broken.
There are no limitations that can constrain this international police force. Will Americans surrender their rights without a word? I think not! We are a people who love our country and will stand for what we hold dear. Have they taken what is ours without firing a shot?
Obama doesn’t answer to the American people. He marches to his own power-grabbing hum. Nor does he care what the people of this great country think or feel.
Is Obama going to be a member of the dictator and tyrant club soon? Does he think Americans have no backbone? Does he think we will follow him with blind faith where ever he leads? I think not!
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them," he wrote.
At the ThreatsWatch.org website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.
"In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves," they wrote.
"When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement," they said.
"This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests," ThreatsWatch reported.
But with Obama's change, "It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure."
At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol's headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn't much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail.
The court was introduced to the U.S. when President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 1998. But President George W. Bush pulled the U.S. out in 2003 over concerns that the ICC might prosecute American soldiers for war-crime charges coming from the U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The concern was that the ICC doesn't recognize many of the U.S. Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials, such as the right to a trial by jury and protections against double jeopardy.
"The meeting at The Hague is also in preparation for the Rome Statute's review in May of 2010," Schaefer said. "Mr. Rapp is there to find out if (the 108) member states are interested in amending the document to address U.S. concerns. Ambassador Rapp is there to learn how substantial the barriers to the U.S. joining the court actually are."
Laney admitted it was a change in U.S. direction that prompted the trip.
"The decision to send Ambassador Rapp reflects the commitment of this administration to engage the international community on issues that affect our foreign policy interests," Andy Laney of the U.S. State Department said.
Cyndi’s Veiw:
Because Obama has elected to do this, American citizens can be prosecuted under International Court by world Judges. We no longer have a corner of freedom in the world. We will not know what laws we are breaking because the World Court doesn’t recognize our Constitution and laws that preserve common human rights.
We, as an unwilling party, joined the One World Government by the hand of Obama. Now, by that same hand, we will be part of a World Court. What will be next?
What about war crimes? We may have a problem if another country decides to prosecute soldiers of our nation because they were only following orders during wartime. You’re going to have soldiers that will refuse to do their jobs in fear of prosecution at a later date.
As I have stated in the past, Transnationalism is in play in our nation and nations around the world. If you have been following the process of Obama’s change since his beginning, you’ll see his socialized economics is his passion. And if you connect the dots you’ll see socialism and transnationalism are bedfellows who then produce globalization. They snatch away human’s right.
There are no boundaries in transnationalism. None of this is going to be a voluntary choice for the people of America. Clearly the fact remains this International body, Interpol Enforcement, is above our highest law and that includes our Constitution.
The Interpol police have diplomatic immunity. So, just say there are dirty cops among them; there will be no consequences for their crimes. Who will they answer to except the World Court? We will have little choice at any rate but to comply to their judgments because we will not know what laws we have broken.
There are no limitations that can constrain this international police force. Will Americans surrender their rights without a word? I think not! We are a people who love our country and will stand for what we hold dear. Have they taken what is ours without firing a shot?
Obama doesn’t answer to the American people. He marches to his own power-grabbing hum. Nor does he care what the people of this great country think or feel.
Is Obama going to be a member of the dictator and tyrant club soon? Does he think Americans have no backbone? Does he think we will follow him with blind faith where ever he leads? I think not!
Gun Control In America
FOX Network's Frank Luntz reported that the gun-control debate set out to survey gun owners and found that 69% of those polled agreed there should be no federal restrictions on trace data, as did 74% of gun owners as a whole.
When asked whether they supported or opposed a "proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," 69% of the NRA members and 85% of the nonmembers were in favor. This goes to the so-called gun-show loophole, which allows used-gun merchants to sell firearms without doing the background checks that are required when selling new guns. Attempts in Congress to close this loophole have died after meeting strong opposition from the NRA.UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”
http://www.davegj13.wordpress.com/
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama administration would reverse the Bush administration’s opposition to the UN’s proposed International Small Arms Treaty. This will clear the way for the treaty to reach a vote by the U.N. General Assembly. Seven countries, led by the British, are trying to restart U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. The goal is to “regulate the global arms trade” and “prevent the illegal transfer of guns.”
The irony of this effort is that since virtually banning guns in 1997, the UK has watched violent crime skyrocket by as much as 77% in some studies. The British Mail Online reports, “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.” As a result the U.K. now has the highest violent crime rate in the European Union.
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme. To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe. These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
This is just another attempt to give the U.N. jurisdiction over U.S. policy. On the heels of Obama’s recent Executive Order to provide Interpol with diplomatic level immunity from U.S. law and Constitutional behavior this is another slap in the face to our sovereignty.
Restore the Republic, Reject Global Governance!
“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World (lots of guns)
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition, which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun controlNRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights
WorldNetDaily’s Drew Zahn reported that the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."
"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces – widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. "Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."
Bill forces citizens to list guns on taxes?Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records'
WorldNetDaily’s Chelsea Schilling reported that a firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.
The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.
If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition-feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license.
Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including the following information:
1) current passport-sized photo
2) name, address, date and birthplace
3) any other name the applicant has used
4) a clear thumbprint
5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by federal or state law from obtaining a firearm
6) certification that the applicant will keep the firearm safely stored and out of the possession of minors
7) certificate showing applicant has passed a written firearms examination on the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of firearms owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate"
8) authorization to release "to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant"
9) the date on which the application was submitted
10) applicant signature
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons told ESPN the bill focuses primarily on guns as instruments as crime instead of penalizing the people who commit criminal acts. She said, under the bill, law-abiding citizens might become violators of the law.
"Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible," she said. "For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5-year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."
Cyndi’s Veiw:
The Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What about our 2nd Amendment rights? There seems to be no foundation on which the American people can stand if they take away our Constitional rights. And if you are watching, they are taking them in small increments at a time.
There is a push for a Global treaty that would take away the right to own a gun. The EU plans to use the United Nations as a launching point to carry out their agenda to bring gun control to the United States. This will make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns if they want them.
We as Americans have a right to bear weapons for our own use. Not only for protection, but to hunt game. From the very beginning of time man has used weapons to servive. So what happens if laws are passed to disarm us? I will tell you one of the things that will happen. The criminals will still have guns and will get them at will. When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
The other argument is that this treaty will be good for fighting International crime. But this is all bogus. There is gonna be a restriction of ownership of guns of all kinds. And the UN will work hard to close any loopholes.
Things are not what they seem. They have window dressed this Bill to look as though it is just another treaty that is for our good. But, I am here to tell you that they are about to slap your hands everytime you reach for your freedom rights.
We need too tell our politicians if they vote for this Bill they need not look for re-election. We want our elected officials to stand with us not against us.
When asked whether they supported or opposed a "proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," 69% of the NRA members and 85% of the nonmembers were in favor. This goes to the so-called gun-show loophole, which allows used-gun merchants to sell firearms without doing the background checks that are required when selling new guns. Attempts in Congress to close this loophole have died after meeting strong opposition from the NRA.UN maneuvers to create “Global Gun Control”
http://www.davegj13.wordpress.com/
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the Obama administration would reverse the Bush administration’s opposition to the UN’s proposed International Small Arms Treaty. This will clear the way for the treaty to reach a vote by the U.N. General Assembly. Seven countries, led by the British, are trying to restart U.N. efforts to restrict imports and exports of small arms. The goal is to “regulate the global arms trade” and “prevent the illegal transfer of guns.”
The irony of this effort is that since virtually banning guns in 1997, the UK has watched violent crime skyrocket by as much as 77% in some studies. The British Mail Online reports, “In the decade following [the election of the Labor Party] in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 percent to 1.158 million – more than two every minute.” As a result the U.K. now has the highest violent crime rate in the European Union.
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme. To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe. These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
This is just another attempt to give the U.N. jurisdiction over U.S. policy. On the heels of Obama’s recent Executive Order to provide Interpol with diplomatic level immunity from U.S. law and Constitutional behavior this is another slap in the face to our sovereignty.
Restore the Republic, Reject Global Governance!
“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” – George Mason
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World (lots of guns)
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition, which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
Obama revives talk of U.N. gun controlNRA guests warn international treaty would strip 2nd Amendment rights
WorldNetDaily’s Drew Zahn reported that the U.S. joined a nearly unanimous 153-1 U.N. vote to adopt a resolution setting out a timetable on the proposed Arms Trade Treaty, including a U.N. conference to produce a final accord in 2012.
Brian Wood, disarmament expert for Amnesty International, explained in a Bloomberg report why his organization and others are pushing for the U.S. to join Arms Trade Treaty talks. Wood said the U.S. is the largest conventional arms trader in the world and the unregulated trade of conventional arms "can fuel instability, transnational organized crime and terrorism."
"All countries participate in the conventional arms trade and share responsibility for the 'collateral damage' it produces – widespread death, injuries and human rights abuses," said Rebecca Peters, director of the International Action Network on Small Arms in an Agence France-Presse interview. "Now finally governments have agreed to negotiate legally binding global controls on this deadly trade."
Bill forces citizens to list guns on taxes?Firearms tracking act gives authorities access to your 'mental health records'
WorldNetDaily’s Chelsea Schilling reported that a firearms tracking bill has many bloggers up in arms over a federal requirement that would purportedly force gun owners to list their firearms on federal income tax returns.
The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, or H.R. 45, was introduced Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., on Jan. 6. While the bill does not include stipulations about reporting guns on tax forms, it does contain numerous gun-control proposals that are drawing fierce criticism from gun-rights advocates.
If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition-feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license.
Under the legislation, a person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including the following information:
1) current passport-sized photo
2) name, address, date and birthplace
3) any other name the applicant has used
4) a clear thumbprint
5) a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited by federal or state law from obtaining a firearm
6) certification that the applicant will keep the firearm safely stored and out of the possession of minors
7) certificate showing applicant has passed a written firearms examination on the safe storage of firearms, safe handling of firearms, use of firearms in the home and risks associated with use, legal responsibilities of firearms owners and "any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate"
8) authorization to release "to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant"
9) the date on which the application was submitted
10) applicant signature
National Rifle Association spokeswoman Rachel Parsons told ESPN the bill focuses primarily on guns as instruments as crime instead of penalizing the people who commit criminal acts. She said, under the bill, law-abiding citizens might become violators of the law.
"Several provisions in this bill would make compliance nearly impossible," she said. "For instance, the bill spells out that if a firearms license holder fails to notify the Attorney General of an address change within 60 days, that person would be subject to a 5-year prison term and a fine of up to $250,000."
Cyndi’s Veiw:
The Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What about our 2nd Amendment rights? There seems to be no foundation on which the American people can stand if they take away our Constitional rights. And if you are watching, they are taking them in small increments at a time.
There is a push for a Global treaty that would take away the right to own a gun. The EU plans to use the United Nations as a launching point to carry out their agenda to bring gun control to the United States. This will make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns if they want them.
We as Americans have a right to bear weapons for our own use. Not only for protection, but to hunt game. From the very beginning of time man has used weapons to servive. So what happens if laws are passed to disarm us? I will tell you one of the things that will happen. The criminals will still have guns and will get them at will. When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
The other argument is that this treaty will be good for fighting International crime. But this is all bogus. There is gonna be a restriction of ownership of guns of all kinds. And the UN will work hard to close any loopholes.
Things are not what they seem. They have window dressed this Bill to look as though it is just another treaty that is for our good. But, I am here to tell you that they are about to slap your hands everytime you reach for your freedom rights.
We need too tell our politicians if they vote for this Bill they need not look for re-election. We want our elected officials to stand with us not against us.
Friday, January 1, 2010
FAITH UNDER FIRE
WorldNetDaily Bob Unruh reported Criminalizing Christians now losing steam at U.N But religious rights advocates warn plan still a danger to Western world A leading advocate for religious rights says an Islam-sponsored religious anti-"defamation" resolution pushed in the United Nations appears to be losing support but still remains a rattlesnake to Christianity around the world.
"U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based organization that monitors the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, acknowledged what we have stated all along that the resolution is 'aimed at the Western world to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam,'" said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice.As WND reported, the organization raised alarms about the plan supported by the 57 member -nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The group repeatedly has lobbied since 1999 for the plan, based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."
The ACLJ has launched a petition effort to raise awareness of the campaign, to be delivered to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights.
According to the ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, "The 'defamation of religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law.
"Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued.
Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah codeDetroit billboard says religious law imposed by Islam threatens rights Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn't going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee. Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.
"SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA," warns the sign.
The UAC says it's "dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam" and works to "educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism." 1
The group's mission is to battle against "the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America."
"Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights," the organization stated.
The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves reported that In seeking to apply the broad and all-inclusive definition of "sacrilegious" given by the New York courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies. …
[F]rom the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.[16] (Emphasis added.)
The "defamation of religions" concept, if instituted as U.S. law, would clearly run afoul of the Court's holding in the Joseph Burstyn, Inc. case. Any attempt by the federal government (or any state government) to censor speech or expressive conduct under such circumstances would place the government in the untenable position of suppressing "real or imagined attacks" on Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other religious faith currently practiced in the U.S.
http://www.heritage.org/
Ted R. Bromund and Morgan Roach reported that, in uncovering the Global Network, Great Britain and the United States also need to continue and enhance their close cooperation on homeland security to prevent British Islamists from infiltrating the United States. And the Lisbon Treaty and other European Union initiatives will undermine the U.S. and Britain’s ability to control its own borders.
Finally, both need to recognize that further European integration will imperil Britain's ability to control its own borders, reducing security in both Britain and the United States. It is therefore not in the interest of either country to support the deepening of the European Union (EU).U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals Sharia-following Islamic nations demanding anti-'defamation' law
WorldNetDaily Bob Unruh reported that dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.
"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law and Justice said. http://www.aclj.org/
The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity." The "anti-defamation" plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to "religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights."
WorldNetDaily Chelsea Schilling reported that A new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading Imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.
The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.
Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center. "The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur 'Allahu akhbar,' bow and kneel again," reports Spiegel Online.
"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.
They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.
The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.
Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter's Church, New York's oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner. Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.
Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."
"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Khan told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."
The city's Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present." The second, just a day later, states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place."
Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as "resolved" under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.
WorldNetDaily Bob Unruh
A resolution pending in the United Nations in one form or another since 1999 is being pushed again by the Islamic nations that originally proposed the plan they called "Defamation of Islam," which would ban criticism of the beliefs of Muhammad worldwide.
The proposal, sought by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, now has be renamed "Defamation of Religions," but officials with Open Doors, an international Christian ministry operating in many of those Islamic states, is warning about its potential impact.
WND has reported that a recent incarnation of the resolution sought to make the ban on criticism of Islam mandatory worldwide, even though support for the proposal at the time was plummeting.
Now, lobbying for the resolution has resumed among decision-makers at the U.N., according to Lindsay Vessey, the advocacy director for Open Doors who traveled this week to New York in opposition to the plan.
If fully implemented, the resolution would ban "criticism" of religions worldwide.
But Vessey told WND the real agenda was revealed by the original title of the resolution, "Defamation of Islam," which would "criminalize people who criticize a religion."
U.N. human rights provisions always have focused on individuals, but the concept of protecting a religion would give authoritarian governments virtually unrestrained power to attack individuals whose message they don't like, she said.
"It would legitimize national blasphemy laws in countries that are actually going to persecute religious minorities, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan," she told WND.
Open Doors President Carl Moeller recently published a commentary describing what could happen under the proposal.
"The United Nations is once again on the verge of introducing a resolution that goes against everything the world body supposedly stands for. A successful resolution would actually undermine the religious liberty and personal safety of Christians and members of other faiths," he wrote.
In fact, he said the resolution would "silence words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion, and that religion is Islam. While the stated goal seems relatively innocuous – blocking defamation of people's deeply held religious beliefs – in practice the statement is used to silence those whose only crime is to believe in another faith, or no faith at all."
He said the OIC as the driving force behind the plan and noted, "The OIC's goal is anything but peaceful."
He cited a comment from Leonard Leo of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, who described the resolution as an attempt to create a "global blasphemy law."
"From the right to worship freely to the ability to tell others about Jesus Christ, the Defamation of Religions Resolution (previously called the 'Defamation of Islam' resolution) threatens to justify local laws that already restrict the freedom of Christians [and other religious minorities]," Moeller said.
When such laws are adopted locally, he said, they are used to bring criminal charges against individuals for "defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations."
Cyndi’s View:
One Nation under God will soon be a phrase never used again if the Islamic agenda is put into play. My heart weeps at the very thought. There is a global war being waged against our constitution. Our freedoms threaten others who wish to force their will upon us.
The first Amendment says,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably too assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
All this simply means we have the right to have freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of speech or expression. How long will these freedoms be ours to express and live by?
Imagine if Islamic anti-defamation is made law there will be no freedom that will not be trampled on especially Christianity. If you even criticize radical Islam you will be prosecuted. This will seriously effect a Christian’s witness. And there are Christians being targeted for their belief around the world as I write this. So when the UN adopts this anti-defamation plan it will further promote anti-Christian bigotry.
You see, this plan will make Christians criminals. It stands to be the most dangerous act against our faith and that is besides our freedom of speech. Sharia law will over ride every human right, which simply means you will have no human rights if you are a Christian anywhere in the world.
Abraham Lincoln said, “Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit, which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage, and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.” Speech at Edwardsville, IL, 1858.
Ulysses S. Grant said, "Let us labor for the security of free thought, free speech, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and equal rights and privileges for all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion;... leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." Speech to G. A. R. Veterans, at Des Moines, IA 1875.
George Washington said, "Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Letter, United Baptist Chamber of Virginia May 1789
Forget religious freedom as we know it. Sharia law will take over every part of your life if it is allowed to take root. If something is not done to stop it we will see it take hold. It will have the power to effect every part of your life. Such as politics, how you spend and make your money, how you do business, what you teach your children, what you are allowed to eat, sex, and what you should think. As I have shown you, even our Founding Fathers thought it a danger to Government control your right to worship and speak your mind.
The sharia law will cause imprisonment or death to those who don’t comply. There is no religious tolerance for any one outside Islam. We as Christians will have our hands tied and our mouths muzzled so that we can’t share our faith in Jesus with a Muslim in general. This will even affect our freedom to worship.
Never take for granted the freedoms we hold dear here in America. Use them while you can.
"U.N. Watch, a Geneva-based organization that monitors the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, acknowledged what we have stated all along that the resolution is 'aimed at the Western world to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam,'" said Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice.As WND reported, the organization raised alarms about the plan supported by the 57 member -nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The group repeatedly has lobbied since 1999 for the plan, based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."
The ACLJ has launched a petition effort to raise awareness of the campaign, to be delivered to the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights.
According to the ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, "The 'defamation of religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law.
"Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued.
Campaign warns Americans about looming Shariah codeDetroit billboard says religious law imposed by Islam threatens rights Shariah, or Islamic law, may be spreading around the world, but it isn't going to be established in the United States without opposition, vow members of the United American Committee. Officials with the non-profit have erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.
"SHARIA LAW THREATENS AMERICA," warns the sign.
The UAC says it's "dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam" and works to "educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism." 1
The group's mission is to battle against "the ideological aspects of the war on terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America."
"Shariah law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Shariah such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights," the organization stated.
The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves reported that In seeking to apply the broad and all-inclusive definition of "sacrilegious" given by the New York courts, the censor is set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies. …
[F]rom the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.[16] (Emphasis added.)
The "defamation of religions" concept, if instituted as U.S. law, would clearly run afoul of the Court's holding in the Joseph Burstyn, Inc. case. Any attempt by the federal government (or any state government) to censor speech or expressive conduct under such circumstances would place the government in the untenable position of suppressing "real or imagined attacks" on Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any other religious faith currently practiced in the U.S.
http://www.heritage.org/
Ted R. Bromund and Morgan Roach reported that, in uncovering the Global Network, Great Britain and the United States also need to continue and enhance their close cooperation on homeland security to prevent British Islamists from infiltrating the United States. And the Lisbon Treaty and other European Union initiatives will undermine the U.S. and Britain’s ability to control its own borders.
Finally, both need to recognize that further European integration will imperil Britain's ability to control its own borders, reducing security in both Britain and the United States. It is therefore not in the interest of either country to support the deepening of the European Union (EU).U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals Sharia-following Islamic nations demanding anti-'defamation' law
WorldNetDaily Bob Unruh reported that dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.
"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law and Justice said. http://www.aclj.org/
The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity." The "anti-defamation" plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to "religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights."
WorldNetDaily Chelsea Schilling reported that A new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading Imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.
The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.
Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center. "The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur 'Allahu akhbar,' bow and kneel again," reports Spiegel Online.
"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.
They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.
The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.
Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter's Church, New York's oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner. Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, "merchandising options," and room for seminars to reconcile religions, "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, " Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.
Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building "where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11."
"It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11," Khan told Spiegel. "In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It's almost as if God wanted to be involved."
The city's Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present." The second, just a day later, states, "Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place."
Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as "resolved" under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.
WorldNetDaily Bob Unruh
A resolution pending in the United Nations in one form or another since 1999 is being pushed again by the Islamic nations that originally proposed the plan they called "Defamation of Islam," which would ban criticism of the beliefs of Muhammad worldwide.
The proposal, sought by the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, now has be renamed "Defamation of Religions," but officials with Open Doors, an international Christian ministry operating in many of those Islamic states, is warning about its potential impact.
WND has reported that a recent incarnation of the resolution sought to make the ban on criticism of Islam mandatory worldwide, even though support for the proposal at the time was plummeting.
Now, lobbying for the resolution has resumed among decision-makers at the U.N., according to Lindsay Vessey, the advocacy director for Open Doors who traveled this week to New York in opposition to the plan.
If fully implemented, the resolution would ban "criticism" of religions worldwide.
But Vessey told WND the real agenda was revealed by the original title of the resolution, "Defamation of Islam," which would "criminalize people who criticize a religion."
U.N. human rights provisions always have focused on individuals, but the concept of protecting a religion would give authoritarian governments virtually unrestrained power to attack individuals whose message they don't like, she said.
"It would legitimize national blasphemy laws in countries that are actually going to persecute religious minorities, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan," she told WND.
Open Doors President Carl Moeller recently published a commentary describing what could happen under the proposal.
"The United Nations is once again on the verge of introducing a resolution that goes against everything the world body supposedly stands for. A successful resolution would actually undermine the religious liberty and personal safety of Christians and members of other faiths," he wrote.
In fact, he said the resolution would "silence words or actions that are deemed to be against a particular religion, and that religion is Islam. While the stated goal seems relatively innocuous – blocking defamation of people's deeply held religious beliefs – in practice the statement is used to silence those whose only crime is to believe in another faith, or no faith at all."
He said the OIC as the driving force behind the plan and noted, "The OIC's goal is anything but peaceful."
He cited a comment from Leonard Leo of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, who described the resolution as an attempt to create a "global blasphemy law."
"From the right to worship freely to the ability to tell others about Jesus Christ, the Defamation of Religions Resolution (previously called the 'Defamation of Islam' resolution) threatens to justify local laws that already restrict the freedom of Christians [and other religious minorities]," Moeller said.
When such laws are adopted locally, he said, they are used to bring criminal charges against individuals for "defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations."
Cyndi’s View:
One Nation under God will soon be a phrase never used again if the Islamic agenda is put into play. My heart weeps at the very thought. There is a global war being waged against our constitution. Our freedoms threaten others who wish to force their will upon us.
The first Amendment says,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably too assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
All this simply means we have the right to have freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of speech or expression. How long will these freedoms be ours to express and live by?
Imagine if Islamic anti-defamation is made law there will be no freedom that will not be trampled on especially Christianity. If you even criticize radical Islam you will be prosecuted. This will seriously effect a Christian’s witness. And there are Christians being targeted for their belief around the world as I write this. So when the UN adopts this anti-defamation plan it will further promote anti-Christian bigotry.
You see, this plan will make Christians criminals. It stands to be the most dangerous act against our faith and that is besides our freedom of speech. Sharia law will over ride every human right, which simply means you will have no human rights if you are a Christian anywhere in the world.
Abraham Lincoln said, “Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit, which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage, and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.” Speech at Edwardsville, IL, 1858.
Ulysses S. Grant said, "Let us labor for the security of free thought, free speech, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and equal rights and privileges for all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion;... leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." Speech to G. A. R. Veterans, at Des Moines, IA 1875.
George Washington said, "Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Letter, United Baptist Chamber of Virginia May 1789
Forget religious freedom as we know it. Sharia law will take over every part of your life if it is allowed to take root. If something is not done to stop it we will see it take hold. It will have the power to effect every part of your life. Such as politics, how you spend and make your money, how you do business, what you teach your children, what you are allowed to eat, sex, and what you should think. As I have shown you, even our Founding Fathers thought it a danger to Government control your right to worship and speak your mind.
The sharia law will cause imprisonment or death to those who don’t comply. There is no religious tolerance for any one outside Islam. We as Christians will have our hands tied and our mouths muzzled so that we can’t share our faith in Jesus with a Muslim in general. This will even affect our freedom to worship.
Never take for granted the freedoms we hold dear here in America. Use them while you can.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS ADMIT DUMPING DATA
Monday, November 30, 2009 Fox News.com
Scientists have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which predictions of global warming were based Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate skeptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change skeptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Fox News
CRU statement recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) has been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.
This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.
Fox News
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Facing Scandal, the director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation. The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
Professor Jones said, "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."
Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate," he told FoxNews.com.
Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.
Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
Van Jones, President Obama's controversial former "green jobs" czar, serves on the advisory board of an independent environmental organization actively working with the White House, WND has learned.
Jones resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible
involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Jones is one of 20 advisers to the University of Colorado–based Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, which draws up climate-policy recommendations for the White House and has been working with members of the Obama administration
The PCAP last September released a lengthy proposal to guide the environmental policies during the first 100 days of the 44th U.S. president regardless of whether Obama or Sen. John McCain won the election.
William S. Becker, the PCAP's executive director, confirmed to WND his group is "about to propose a new and more assertive strategy for President Obama to raise the bar on the U.S. climate goal, with or without Congress."
Becker told WND his group's initial proposals have received a "very positive reception from the moment we delivered (the 100-day proposal) last November to John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team."
"We continue to work with some colleagues inside the (Obama) administration, as well as continuing to push for bold action from the outside," he said.
Becker said the White House "adopted quite a few of our recommendations or variations of them." He cited a few examples of the influence of the PCAP and other environmental groups on Obama's policies:
The PCAP recommended that the U.S. reach a bilateral climate deal with China prior to the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The U.S. has since signed several agreements with China to share technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions.
The PCAP recommended an executive order that removed the gags from federal climate scientists. This became one of Obama's first actions on environmental policy.
The PCAP recommended an overhaul of federal energy management to beef up efficiency requirements for federal agencies and to restore absolute carbon reduction targets that had been rescinded by the Bush administration. The Obama administration issued a new federal energy management order in October, including a requirement that agencies develop absolute targets for greenhouse-gas reductions.
Fox News reported:
WASHINGTON -- Top White House science officials defended the validity of global warming research against repeated Republican attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate researchers.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center, were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent.
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The brewing controversy led to the resignation this week of Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican.
GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL MAKES SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS MORE DIFFICULT, EXPERTS SAY
Tuesday, December 01, 2009 "They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.
Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.
Many in the environmental policy community are outraged about the disclosure that the data has been lost. "The scientific process has become so appallingly corrupted," James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com.
WorldNetDaily.com reported:
Van Jones STORM's official manifesto, titled "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet until WND and other websites linked to the online publication.
A review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."
"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," read Jones' manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Zedong and Amilcar Cabral."
Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands. Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.
Speaking to the East Bay Express in 2005, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.
"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist. I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.
ABC.net.au
Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails. Europe correspondent Emma Alberici reported that the scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.
His words came on the same day as the University of East Anglia announced an investigation into the thousands of damaging leaked emails emanating from its Climatic Research Unit.
Professor Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit in New York. In 1989 he made several appearances before Congress and did more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and the urgent need to change behavior.
Earlier this year, he was awarded the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by the American Meteorological Society. It was awarded for his outstanding contribution to climate modeling and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.
He certainly was not mincing his words when he gave his views to the Guardian newspaper online about the prospects for next week's climate change conference.
"The approach that's being talked about is so fundamentally wrong that it's better to reassess the situation," he said. "I think it's just as well that we not have a substantive treaty."
Professor Hansen argues that the process is so flawed because it relies on cap and trade emissions trading schemes, like the one proposed by the Australian Government.
Instead of allowing polluters to buy the right to continue polluting, he prefers a tax on the price of carbon at the mine or the port. "The whole idea that you have goals that you're supposed to try to meet and that you have outs with offsets means that it's an attempt to continue business as usual," he said.
Professor Hansen's research has been put under a microscope after the leaking last month of emails sent by scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
Climate skeptics have seized on the correspondence, claiming that it shows how flimsy climate science is. It has now been revealed one of the United States president's advisers, John Holdren, was involved in sending and receiving the emails. Republicans accused him of being a scientific fascist.
The university's vice chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, he is treating it as a matter of enormous importance.” I think [it's] very important that the university be sure-footed and confident about each step that it takes and I think we must now look forward to the review being undertaken, I hope swiftly," he said.
The head of the university's prestigious research unit stands by his data but he has stood down and an independent investigation into the contents of the emails has now been announced.
Cyndi’s perspective:
As I have reported to you before from CBN News paper excerpts, the sun is very cold right now and that is why we haven’t seen global warming in about 12 years. This from some well respected scientist. They are concerned about global cooling.
The EPA wants to regulate green house admissions, that is CO2 pollution, under the clean air act. A move the Chamber of Commerse warns could cost the American economy 1 ½ trillion dollars and 2 million jobs. EPA says climate change is a matter of life and death.
But the opposite is true. The earth is cooling due to the fact that the sun has been devoid of any sun spots in 2008 and 2009. Nasa says sun spot activity is now at a 100 year low. Climatologist Patrick Michaels says that there was warming started 1977 and ended 1997 and hasn’t been seen since.
So my thought is, something smells to high heaven. I mean, why would a treaty be needed for if there is no earth warming in the first place?A 200 page treaty composed by Communist looking for world control. What they are calling a Greenpeace movement is no more than a take over without firing one shot. Two step forward and one step back is how they have come this far. And Van Jones with his hand still on the Presidents shoulder and a whisper in his ear saying this is the path, we can expect an attempt to slip his goal of Marxist World Government right by the American people.
And if the earth is not warming and the organizations who are fleesing the climate are presenting a hoax, don’t you think we are being duked into paying a CO2 tax to third world countries we can’t afford. The treaty, if signed, will also bring in a Global Goverance That is the massive transfer of wealth Obama is so famous of speaking of. Can you handle massive tax increases and government control
According to the Washington Times Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said that in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.- created “government” responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution.
Are you seeing a picture coming together? We will have a climate debt where we will be force to pay billions of dollars every year. Is our pockets that deep? It seems if they can’t tax us one way they will another. The present Administration is all about taxation without representation.
Van Jones is not out of the picture. He still influences Obama when it comes to climate issues. A self proclaimed Marxist-communist directing our government And like puppets on a string they follow the moves to the letter.
In my opinion, the signing of this treaty in Copenhagen will only serve to cause greater taxes and the stomping on our Constitution. Once signed there is no turning back. No matter how many presidents come and go there can be no changing what has been set in motion
Scientists have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which predictions of global warming were based Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate skeptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change skeptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Fox News
CRU statement recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) has been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.
A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.
This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.
Fox News
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Facing Scandal, the director of the prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation. The director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
In a statement posted to its Web site, the University of East Anglia says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
Professor Jones said, "What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."
Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., thinks more is still to come from the scandal coming to be known as Climategate. “It certainly shows that there’s more to the investigation and there’s more to come, and we’re only at the beginning stages of learning about climate-gate," he told FoxNews.com.
Dempsey added that Inhofe plans to request a hearing on the topic formally from Enivornment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer in a letter later today.
Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily
Van Jones, President Obama's controversial former "green jobs" czar, serves on the advisory board of an independent environmental organization actively working with the White House, WND has learned.
Jones resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible
involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Jones is one of 20 advisers to the University of Colorado–based Presidential Climate Action Project, or PCAP, which draws up climate-policy recommendations for the White House and has been working with members of the Obama administration
The PCAP last September released a lengthy proposal to guide the environmental policies during the first 100 days of the 44th U.S. president regardless of whether Obama or Sen. John McCain won the election.
William S. Becker, the PCAP's executive director, confirmed to WND his group is "about to propose a new and more assertive strategy for President Obama to raise the bar on the U.S. climate goal, with or without Congress."
Becker told WND his group's initial proposals have received a "very positive reception from the moment we delivered (the 100-day proposal) last November to John Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team."
"We continue to work with some colleagues inside the (Obama) administration, as well as continuing to push for bold action from the outside," he said.
Becker said the White House "adopted quite a few of our recommendations or variations of them." He cited a few examples of the influence of the PCAP and other environmental groups on Obama's policies:
The PCAP recommended that the U.S. reach a bilateral climate deal with China prior to the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The U.S. has since signed several agreements with China to share technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions.
The PCAP recommended an executive order that removed the gags from federal climate scientists. This became one of Obama's first actions on environmental policy.
The PCAP recommended an overhaul of federal energy management to beef up efficiency requirements for federal agencies and to restore absolute carbon reduction targets that had been rescinded by the Bush administration. The Obama administration issued a new federal energy management order in October, including a requirement that agencies develop absolute targets for greenhouse-gas reductions.
Fox News reported:
WASHINGTON -- Top White House science officials defended the validity of global warming research against repeated Republican attacks Wednesday that cited leaked e-mails from some climate researchers.
The e-mails from a British university's climate center, were obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent.
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The brewing controversy led to the resignation this week of Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Republican.
GLOBAL WARMING SCANDAL MAKES SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS MORE DIFFICULT, EXPERTS SAY
Tuesday, December 01, 2009 "They are making scientific progress more difficult now," says Willie Soon, a physicist, astronomer and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the Harvard University-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "This is a shameful, dark day for science," he said in an interview with FoxNews.com.
Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.
Many in the environmental policy community are outraged about the disclosure that the data has been lost. "The scientific process has become so appallingly corrupted," James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com.
WorldNetDaily.com reported:
Van Jones STORM's official manifesto, titled "Reclaiming Revolution," had been published on the Internet until WND and other websites linked to the online publication.
A review of the 97-page treatise found that the manual describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."
"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," read Jones' manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Zedong and Amilcar Cabral."
Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands. Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.
Speaking to the East Bay Express in 2005, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.
"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist. I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.
ABC.net.au
Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails. Europe correspondent Emma Alberici reported that the scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.
His words came on the same day as the University of East Anglia announced an investigation into the thousands of damaging leaked emails emanating from its Climatic Research Unit.
Professor Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit in New York. In 1989 he made several appearances before Congress and did more than any other scientist to educate politicians about the causes of global warming and the urgent need to change behavior.
Earlier this year, he was awarded the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by the American Meteorological Society. It was awarded for his outstanding contribution to climate modeling and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.
He certainly was not mincing his words when he gave his views to the Guardian newspaper online about the prospects for next week's climate change conference.
"The approach that's being talked about is so fundamentally wrong that it's better to reassess the situation," he said. "I think it's just as well that we not have a substantive treaty."
Professor Hansen argues that the process is so flawed because it relies on cap and trade emissions trading schemes, like the one proposed by the Australian Government.
Instead of allowing polluters to buy the right to continue polluting, he prefers a tax on the price of carbon at the mine or the port. "The whole idea that you have goals that you're supposed to try to meet and that you have outs with offsets means that it's an attempt to continue business as usual," he said.
Professor Hansen's research has been put under a microscope after the leaking last month of emails sent by scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
Climate skeptics have seized on the correspondence, claiming that it shows how flimsy climate science is. It has now been revealed one of the United States president's advisers, John Holdren, was involved in sending and receiving the emails. Republicans accused him of being a scientific fascist.
The university's vice chancellor, Professor Edward Acton, he is treating it as a matter of enormous importance.” I think [it's] very important that the university be sure-footed and confident about each step that it takes and I think we must now look forward to the review being undertaken, I hope swiftly," he said.
The head of the university's prestigious research unit stands by his data but he has stood down and an independent investigation into the contents of the emails has now been announced.
Cyndi’s perspective:
As I have reported to you before from CBN News paper excerpts, the sun is very cold right now and that is why we haven’t seen global warming in about 12 years. This from some well respected scientist. They are concerned about global cooling.
The EPA wants to regulate green house admissions, that is CO2 pollution, under the clean air act. A move the Chamber of Commerse warns could cost the American economy 1 ½ trillion dollars and 2 million jobs. EPA says climate change is a matter of life and death.
But the opposite is true. The earth is cooling due to the fact that the sun has been devoid of any sun spots in 2008 and 2009. Nasa says sun spot activity is now at a 100 year low. Climatologist Patrick Michaels says that there was warming started 1977 and ended 1997 and hasn’t been seen since.
So my thought is, something smells to high heaven. I mean, why would a treaty be needed for if there is no earth warming in the first place?A 200 page treaty composed by Communist looking for world control. What they are calling a Greenpeace movement is no more than a take over without firing one shot. Two step forward and one step back is how they have come this far. And Van Jones with his hand still on the Presidents shoulder and a whisper in his ear saying this is the path, we can expect an attempt to slip his goal of Marxist World Government right by the American people.
And if the earth is not warming and the organizations who are fleesing the climate are presenting a hoax, don’t you think we are being duked into paying a CO2 tax to third world countries we can’t afford. The treaty, if signed, will also bring in a Global Goverance That is the massive transfer of wealth Obama is so famous of speaking of. Can you handle massive tax increases and government control
According to the Washington Times Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said that in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.- created “government” responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution.
Are you seeing a picture coming together? We will have a climate debt where we will be force to pay billions of dollars every year. Is our pockets that deep? It seems if they can’t tax us one way they will another. The present Administration is all about taxation without representation.
Van Jones is not out of the picture. He still influences Obama when it comes to climate issues. A self proclaimed Marxist-communist directing our government And like puppets on a string they follow the moves to the letter.
In my opinion, the signing of this treaty in Copenhagen will only serve to cause greater taxes and the stomping on our Constitution. Once signed there is no turning back. No matter how many presidents come and go there can be no changing what has been set in motion
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Secret Obama deal for Palestinian state? Israeli officials fear White House's 'very dangerous move'
WorldNetDaily Aaron Klein
TEL AVIV – The U.S. is considering adopting a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence in the West Bank and Jerusalem regardless of negotiations with the Jewish state, according to Israeli sources speaking to Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
WND reported that the White House had accepted the positions of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who had quietly called for a state on the pre-1967 borders within two years. Now Haaretz is quoting reports indicating that Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state.
Haaretz.com quoted Israeli sources stating Fayyad's plan specifies that at the end of a designated period for bolstering national institutions, the PA, in conjunction with the Arab League, would file a "claim of sovereignty" to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly over the 1967 borders.
Israeli officials further told Haaretz that Fayyad had boasted of positive meetings about his plan with prominent EU member states, including the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Sweden.
Fayyad also told Israeli officials the Obama administration did not oppose his plan.
A senior Israeli foreign-policy official told Haaretz, "It's a very dangerous move."
Israeli sources further said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed Fayyad's proposal in previous meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama's Mideast envoy George Mitchell.
A PA official also said Obama had accepted the PA position that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations begin where they left off under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who went further than previous Israeli leaders in his concessions to the Palestinians.
Olmert reportedly offered the PA not only 95 percent of the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods but also other territories never before offered by any Israeli leader, including parts of the Israeli Negev desert bordering Gaza as well as sections of the Jordan Valley.
Obama hails 'anti-Israel' Arab plan initiative includes massive concessions, erosion of Jewish character
WorldNetDaily’s Aaron Klein reported that JERUSALEM – Following scores of denials he would trumpet the plan, President Obama today hailed a so-called "Saudi Peace Initiative," which offers normalization of ties with the Jewish state in exchange for extreme Israeli concessions.
Defenders of Israel warn the plan would leave the Jewish state with truncated, difficult-to-defend borders and could threaten Israel's Jewish character by compelling it to accept millions of foreign Arabs.
An original proposal by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2002, states that Israel would receive "normal relations" with the Arab world in exchange for a full withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights and eastern Jerusalem, which includes the Temple Mount.
The West Bank contains important Jewish biblical sites and borders central Israeli population centers, while the Golan Heights looks down on Israeli civilian zones and twice was used by Syria to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.
JPOST.Com reported that Netanyahu has called for creation of a limited Palestinian state for the first time, saying it would have to be disarmed. Netanyahu made the call during a major policy speech about his Mideast peacemaking intentions.
"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel," he said.
"If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state," he said.
Up to now Netanyahu has resisted endorsing the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a Mideast peace settlement, drawing intense pressure from the administration of President Barack Obama.
Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and he declared that the solution of the Palestinian refugee problem must be "outside Israel."
Palestinians claim that refugees from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation and their millions of descendants have the right to reclaim their original homes.
I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions," he said. "Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all the other parties to fulfill their obligations as well."
Netanyahu also called for Arab leaders to meet him and contribute to Palestinian economic development
"Let me use the most simple words - the root of the struggle is the refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The initial Arab refusal was to a Jewish state in any location, before Israeli presence in the West Bank," the prime minister said.
"The closer we get to an agreement with the Palestinians, the further it is rejected," he continued. "We tried a withdrawal with an agreement, without one, a partial withdraw and we offered a near-complete withdraw. We uprooted Jewish settlers from their homes, and received a barrage of missiles in return."
"Sadly, even the Palestinian moderates won't say the most simple statement - Israel is the Jewish national state, and will remain as such.
"For peace," he said, "we must ensure that Palestinians have no weapons and the opportunity to create pacts with hostile forces.
"If we receive a commitment to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, we can reach a final agreement." Netanyahu continued to stress that Jerusalem would remain a united Jewish city.
WorldNetDaily’s Aaron Klein reports:
TEL AVIV – The website for the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem ignores Jews and the state of Israel while providing news and services geared primarily toward Arabs and Palestinians, a pro-Israel group has charged.
"This disclosure is almost beyond belief," stated Harvey Schwartz, chairman of American Israeli Action Coalition. "It is as if the United States is totally denying the existence of Israel or Israelis. We do not believe that this is in accordance with the will of the American people."
The Coalition sent around blast e-mails pointing out the consulate website maintains an Arabic section but not a Hebrew one and that almost the entire
website is dedicated to helping the Palestinian cause
A WND review of the website yesterday found about a dozen announcements related to U.S. aid to the Palestinians, including English training provided to Palestinians schools; an item about a $200 million grant to the Palestinian Authority; and eight local grants provided to Arabs in eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
Not a single announcement was related to Israel except for a two-sentence item on the opening ceremony to mark the U.S. funding of an initiative to review Israel and Palestinian textbooks. But even that announcement was geared toward the PA.
The website further announces the availability of educational financial grants to candidates who must be "a Palestinian resident of the West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip," thereby excluding Israelis.
One initiative announced on the site is a U.S. grant provided to the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange, a Palestinian nonprofit whose official website refers to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem as "Palestinian areas" even though the territories contain historically Jewish biblical areas and are recognized by international law as either "disputed" or "occupied" but not as Palestinian areas.
Aside from a website geared toward Palestinians, WND broke the story last week that the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem also closely monitors and protests Jewish construction projects in eastern Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank.
The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last March Mitchell oversaw the establishment of an enhanced apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours of the areas, at times on a daily basis.
"They drive around the towns, check up on what's going on. They try to mingle with us to get more information on what we're up to and what we're doing," he said.
Haivri, a 20-year resident of Tapuach said, “The consular officials present themselves as advisers to the U.S. consul-general.But we know they are really spies for the Obama administration," he said.
Jerusalem officials affirm the consular staff report to Obama's envoy, Mitchell.
Cyndi’s Veiw:
Now that the One World Government has a permanent President in place they will work forward in their effort to force the Jews into a treaty. This treaty will give most of its power to the Palestinians. The Jews will have to give up much of its land and basically stop reproducing.
Obama’s goal is to give all kinds of headaches to Netanyahu in an effort to ware him down. The Administration’s plan will establish a Palestinian state in the heart of the ancient Jewish land. Meaning, he plans to force Israel’s hand to paper and ink. A gangster type of stance will make the U.S. look more like a dictator then peacemaker.
The on going goals of the U.S. Administration and Palestinian negotiations are to push for a Palestinian State in two years or sooner. They are not far from using sanctions against Israel if there is no compliance.
And if you have been keeping current with what has been going on with the peace talks you’ll see Obama has, since the beginning of his reign, been meeting with Arab countries in which his favor is bestowed.
Some of these Arab states that have found favor include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordon. And as a result Israel will be over run with people who want them to disappear from the face of the earth.
What price will it be for Israel’s peace with the Muslim world? Their very sovereignty is in danger of being taken. That threat promises to make the cost too great to pay.
Even now the EU is getting in on the act. By telling them to pursue a resolution to the Arab-Israel conflict. The rest of the world promotes the two-state solution. They say that Israel will face consequences from the European Union if they don’t act soon. (the one world government)
The simple fact is that it seems the Nations are all united against the Jewish state. They are working hard to keep them from being a sovereign country to themselves. But this is nothing new for the Jewish people. All through time they have suffered persecutions and it will always be that way because, I believe as a Christian, they are God’s beloved.
Many pressures are put on these peace talks. And Obama is not really condemning Palestinian terrorism. There is no recognition from the Administration, in my opinion, for the existence of Israel and its right to build and expand as needed. He demands a total Jewish settlement freeze. Well, does Obama’s decrees sound much like a modern day Pharaoh? What does he suggest they do with their babies through natural growth?
What if, just for arguments sake, Mexico and Canada threw missiles at the U.S. on every side? They demanded that we give back land that was either won in battles or bought. And they got together and decided we didn’t even have the right to exist as a sovereign country and then told us we couldn’t expand in any way. Imagine the whole world thinking along those lines. What do you suppose would happen?
If these endeavors succeed who will be next? It is like a raging river that is out of control. After all, they call Israel the little Satan and the U.S. the big Satan.
Just a thought, but what tops the cake is the Obama Administration is like a bull on a full charge, huffs pounding, and a horn sharpened for battle against little sheep.
Monday, November 30, 2009
EU Permanent President Elected And Already Making Plans For 'Global Management of Planet'
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Copenhagen climate summit steps toward 1-world government. In accepting his appointment to be the first permanent president of the European Council in the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy affirmed his belief that the new world order would be dominated by international organizations that would seek to destroy the last vestiges of nation-states on the face of the globe, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
In a speech captured by BBC and posted on YouTube, Van Rompuy proclaimed, "2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."
Mario Borghezio, a member of Italy's Lega Nord who is also a member of the European Parliament, pointed out in a speech to the European Parliament that Van Rompuy is a frequent attendee at Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission meetings.
Borghezio asked how it is possible that no one has mentioned Van Rompuy is a candidate of these "occult groups" who "meet behind closed doors to decide matters over the heads of the people."
Van Rompuy is known in Europe for his proposals that in the EU national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols, such that the national flags of the EU member nations would disappear in favor of the EU flag, and the same would happen with license plates, identity cards and even sporting events, as reported by the Telegraph in Great Britain.
Corsi wrote, "Following Van Rompuy's comments, there should be no doubt that the globalists have no intention of stopping or slowing down, as even the EU itself is simply one small step of regionalism on the new world order journey of international government in which nation-states themselves become bygone entities of a once-treasured past."
EurActiv.com is the Network of independent policy portals on EU affairs, counting 590,000 unique visitors together with the Web 2.0 platform Blogactiv.eu (CM certified figures- October 2008) Set up in 1999, the portal is an important working instrument for majority of EU Actors (institutions, industry federations, NGO’s, think tanks, the press and others) involved in defining or influencing EU policies.
National policy portals of the Cross Lingual Network in 10 countries and 10 Languages are accessible here evractiv.com/fixed/about/crosslingual.htm.
EurActiv, the independent media portal specialized in EU policies, will be running special coverage on Europe’s new treaty from the 30th of November to the 4th of December.
With EU leaders now having decided who their permanent president and foreign policy representative will be, attention is now focusing on what concrete changes the treaty will bring to EU policy.
The special week coverage will feature on EurActiv’s EU Priorities and Opinion section, which is supported by Coca-Cola, IBM, Enel and speak is available free of charge in available free of charge in three languages at the following address: euractiv.com/en/opinion.
Euractiv Newsletter:
On the 27th November 2009, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso unveiled the EU executive's new line-up on Friday (27 November), handing Finn Olli Rehn the key economic policy portfolio and giving Frenchman Michel Barnier a controversial role in overseeing regulation of the financial sector.
The distribution of portfolios is the prerogative of the European Commission president. However, EU member states often state their preferences, trying to "mark their territory" or influence his decision-making.
Commissioners do not represent their countries. However, both in Eastern and Western Europe, the post continues to be seen as the most senior national position in the EU executive.
Rehn takes over from Spaniard Joaquin Almunia, who will become competition commissioner in the 27-country bloc's executive. France's Michel Barnier was named internal market commissioner, with responsibility for financial services.
The formation of the European Commission is the latest stage in the EU's efforts to maintain its influence on the world stage after the economic crisis.
The 27-person team, which represents almost 500 million people, is likely to take office early next year. It will serve for five years, but first needs the European Parliament's approval.
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, today announced the portfolios responsibilities for the next Commission. The President has held detailed consultations with all the Commissioners-designate in order to assign the right jobs to the right people. The President believes that this team can deliver the agenda for change he set out in the political guidelines he presented in September, following his nomination by all 27 Member States and before his approval as
President of the next Commission by the European Parliament.
The new College will have 7 Vice-Presidents, including Vice-President Baroness Catherine Ashton who will, at the same time, be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December next. Three of the Vice-Presidents will be women. The new College will have 27 members, including President Barroso, one from each Member State. It includes 9 women. The members of the College come from different political families, notably the European People's Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S & D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). 14 members, including the President, were already members of the outgoing College.
Responsibilities of the Commissioners-designate
1. Joaquín ALMUNIA: Competition. Vice-President of the Commission.
2. László ANDOR: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
3. Baroness Catherine ASHTON: Who holds two positions of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the Commission.
4. Michel BARNIER: Internal Market and Services.
5. Dacian CIOLOS: Agriculture and Rural Development.
6. John DALLI: Health and Consumer Policy.
7. Maria DAMANAKI: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
8. Karel DE GUCHT: Trade.
9. Štefan FÜLE: Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. *
10. Johannes HAHN: Regional Policy.
11. Connie HEDEGAARD: Climate Action.
12. Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN: Research and Innovation.
13. Rumiana JELEVA: International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response.
14. Siim KALLAS: Transport. Vice-President of the Commission.
15. Neelie KROES: Digital Agenda. Vice-President of the Commission.
16. Janusz LEWANDOWSKI: Budget and Financial Programming.
17. Cecilia MALMSTRÖM: Home Affairs.
18. Günter OETTINGER: Energy.
19. Andris PIEBALGS: Development.
20. Janez POTOČNIK: Environment.
21. Viviane REDING: Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Vice-President of the Commission.
22. Olli REHN: Economic and Monetary Affairs.
23. Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ: Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.
24. Algirdas ŠEMETA: Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.
25. Antonio TAJANI: Industry and Entrepreneurship. Vice-President of the Commission.
26. Androulla VASSILIOU: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.
Note on the Vice-Presidencies: Baroness Catherine Ashton will be the 1 st Vice-President. However, having regard to her specific functions, notably in the Council, the replacement of the President in his absence will be assured by the other Vice-Presidents, in the order of precedence defined by the President. The order of precedence is: Viviane Reding, Joaquín Almunia, Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Antonio Tajani, Maroš Šefčovič.
Policy Summary:
The Irish 'yes' to the Lisbon Treaty in a second referendum in October (EurActiv 03/10/09) and the subsequent signature of the text by Czech President Václav Klaus (EurActiv 03/11/09) ended almost a decade of constitutional debate in the European Union.
It culminated on 19 November with the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the first permanent EU president and Baroness Catherine Ashton as High Representative for Foreign Affairs (EurActiv 20/11/09).
Even though the mandate of the current Commission ended on 31 October 2009, it will remain in place until the new college has been approved and has taken office, expected for early 2010.
On 25 November, the EU executive published a list of 'commissioners-designate for the next Commission.’ Commission President José Manuel Barroso will divide the portfolios between the 27 member states, each of which has nominated one representative. The approval of the European Parliament must then be sought.
Currently, only two of the 27 EU heads of state and government are women: Angela Merkel in Germany and Dalia Grybauskaite in Lithuania. The Commission has never had a female president, while just two of 13 European Parliament presidents have been female since direct elections were introduced in 1979. These were both Frenchwomen, Simone Veil (1979-1982) and Nicole Fontaine (1999-2002).
Barroso II
Barroso won unanimous backing from EU heads of state and government at the 18-19 June summit for a second five-year mandate at the head of the European Commission (EurActiv 19/06/09), and on 16 September the European Parliament approved him to steer the European Commission for a second five-year term - not only under the terms of the current Nice Treaty, but also under the tougher criteria of the Lisbon Treaty, when it comes into force.
Two 'new top jobs'
The Treaty of Lisbon, which will enter into force on 1 December 2009, introduces the new 'top jobs.’ Public opinion and the European press have been widely critical of the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton to the EU's new top positions, with Germany in particular feeling it had been tricked into accepting a bad deal (EurActiv 23/11/09).
Cyndi’s perspective:
At this point your head is more then likely spinning as you have read about these elections. What does it all mean? And what does it all have to do with you, as an American? Well, as I have been telling you for months, it is a climate change discussion with underlying baritones of Communism. And I can hear some of you say,” NOT IN AMERICA!” Yes, sad as it is, in America people have been willing to turn their heads for far too long as cold hearted and hot headed individuals put forth their plan to turn the ‘Land of the Free’ into a Godless Socialist-Progressive Country.
Where is the American outrage? Where is Patriotism? Where is love of freedom? The massive transfer of wealth (sharing the wealth) that Obama talked about before he was even elected is about to happen. People really didn’t listen to what was being said. They only saw color as making history. Not bothering to hear what he planned to do once elected. He didn’t have to hide his intentions because people were so in love with the idea of the first black president that they overlooked everything else. Well, change they wanted, change is what they are going to get. I want you to note that color means nothing to me; it is what is inside a person that makes them worth their salt.
The NX1 countries, as countries like the U.S. are called, will have to pay billions of dollars every year for ‘climate debt’ because they claim that we are to blame for the earth’s warming and our President agrees. Where do you think that this compensation will come from? You and I will have to pay. That is where the bogus ‘Cap and Trade’ comes in. You know, the climate change weapon. CO2 gas is supposed to destroying our world. God made that exchange between humans and plant life as I told you last week. So ‘Cap and Trade’ is virtually rationing energy and in return raising taxes where you won’t be able to afford the essentials of everyday living.
Environmental activists with their fear mongering of doom are already pushing for a restructure of our society. At the very center of ‘Cap and Trade’ is a desire to control people’s lives. The ‘Cap and Trade’ legislature will cause your electricity cost and all other utilities to soar. I can’t say it enough; global warming is a far-sod.
The ‘Lisbon Treaty’ that is expected to be signed by many countries, including ours, is not just about climate change and control, just like the ‘Health Bill is not just about health. It is the signing away of what we as Americans hold dear, our sovereignty. Freedom to love and to live the life we want to.
Lord Monckton has tried to warn America not to let our President sign. But, who can not stop him? He has never once listened to the wishes of the people who put him in office. Once signed, we will be part of a One World Government that doesn’t recognize individual rights. We will not have a Constitution of our own cause it will stand for nothing. The newly elected permanent EU president, Herman Van Rompuy, is a Communist and as stated earlier wants to do away with Nation-states. His plans are to have one peoples, one government, one currency, and one constitution. And Christian rights are not a part of that equation.
These elections may not seem important to you at this time but you must take note. You must be informed as the events unfold so you won’t be blind-sided. As I have told you before, you will not be consulted to what you think in this insanity. We are only spectators.
Copenhagen climate summit steps toward 1-world government. In accepting his appointment to be the first permanent president of the European Council in the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy affirmed his belief that the new world order would be dominated by international organizations that would seek to destroy the last vestiges of nation-states on the face of the globe, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
In a speech captured by BBC and posted on YouTube, Van Rompuy proclaimed, "2009 is the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."
Mario Borghezio, a member of Italy's Lega Nord who is also a member of the European Parliament, pointed out in a speech to the European Parliament that Van Rompuy is a frequent attendee at Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission meetings.
Borghezio asked how it is possible that no one has mentioned Van Rompuy is a candidate of these "occult groups" who "meet behind closed doors to decide matters over the heads of the people."
Van Rompuy is known in Europe for his proposals that in the EU national symbols need to be replaced by European symbols, such that the national flags of the EU member nations would disappear in favor of the EU flag, and the same would happen with license plates, identity cards and even sporting events, as reported by the Telegraph in Great Britain.
Corsi wrote, "Following Van Rompuy's comments, there should be no doubt that the globalists have no intention of stopping or slowing down, as even the EU itself is simply one small step of regionalism on the new world order journey of international government in which nation-states themselves become bygone entities of a once-treasured past."
EurActiv.com is the Network of independent policy portals on EU affairs, counting 590,000 unique visitors together with the Web 2.0 platform Blogactiv.eu (CM certified figures- October 2008) Set up in 1999, the portal is an important working instrument for majority of EU Actors (institutions, industry federations, NGO’s, think tanks, the press and others) involved in defining or influencing EU policies.
National policy portals of the Cross Lingual Network in 10 countries and 10 Languages are accessible here evractiv.com/fixed/about/crosslingual.htm.
EurActiv, the independent media portal specialized in EU policies, will be running special coverage on Europe’s new treaty from the 30th of November to the 4th of December.
With EU leaders now having decided who their permanent president and foreign policy representative will be, attention is now focusing on what concrete changes the treaty will bring to EU policy.
The special week coverage will feature on EurActiv’s EU Priorities and Opinion section, which is supported by Coca-Cola, IBM, Enel and speak is available free of charge in available free of charge in three languages at the following address: euractiv.com/en/opinion.
Euractiv Newsletter:
On the 27th November 2009, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso unveiled the EU executive's new line-up on Friday (27 November), handing Finn Olli Rehn the key economic policy portfolio and giving Frenchman Michel Barnier a controversial role in overseeing regulation of the financial sector.
The distribution of portfolios is the prerogative of the European Commission president. However, EU member states often state their preferences, trying to "mark their territory" or influence his decision-making.
Commissioners do not represent their countries. However, both in Eastern and Western Europe, the post continues to be seen as the most senior national position in the EU executive.
Rehn takes over from Spaniard Joaquin Almunia, who will become competition commissioner in the 27-country bloc's executive. France's Michel Barnier was named internal market commissioner, with responsibility for financial services.
The formation of the European Commission is the latest stage in the EU's efforts to maintain its influence on the world stage after the economic crisis.
The 27-person team, which represents almost 500 million people, is likely to take office early next year. It will serve for five years, but first needs the European Parliament's approval.
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, today announced the portfolios responsibilities for the next Commission. The President has held detailed consultations with all the Commissioners-designate in order to assign the right jobs to the right people. The President believes that this team can deliver the agenda for change he set out in the political guidelines he presented in September, following his nomination by all 27 Member States and before his approval as
President of the next Commission by the European Parliament.
The new College will have 7 Vice-Presidents, including Vice-President Baroness Catherine Ashton who will, at the same time, be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December next. Three of the Vice-Presidents will be women. The new College will have 27 members, including President Barroso, one from each Member State. It includes 9 women. The members of the College come from different political families, notably the European People's Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S & D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). 14 members, including the President, were already members of the outgoing College.
Responsibilities of the Commissioners-designate
1. Joaquín ALMUNIA: Competition. Vice-President of the Commission.
2. László ANDOR: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
3. Baroness Catherine ASHTON: Who holds two positions of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the Commission.
4. Michel BARNIER: Internal Market and Services.
5. Dacian CIOLOS: Agriculture and Rural Development.
6. John DALLI: Health and Consumer Policy.
7. Maria DAMANAKI: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
8. Karel DE GUCHT: Trade.
9. Štefan FÜLE: Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. *
10. Johannes HAHN: Regional Policy.
11. Connie HEDEGAARD: Climate Action.
12. Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN: Research and Innovation.
13. Rumiana JELEVA: International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response.
14. Siim KALLAS: Transport. Vice-President of the Commission.
15. Neelie KROES: Digital Agenda. Vice-President of the Commission.
16. Janusz LEWANDOWSKI: Budget and Financial Programming.
17. Cecilia MALMSTRÖM: Home Affairs.
18. Günter OETTINGER: Energy.
19. Andris PIEBALGS: Development.
20. Janez POTOČNIK: Environment.
21. Viviane REDING: Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Vice-President of the Commission.
22. Olli REHN: Economic and Monetary Affairs.
23. Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ: Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.
24. Algirdas ŠEMETA: Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.
25. Antonio TAJANI: Industry and Entrepreneurship. Vice-President of the Commission.
26. Androulla VASSILIOU: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.
Note on the Vice-Presidencies: Baroness Catherine Ashton will be the 1 st Vice-President. However, having regard to her specific functions, notably in the Council, the replacement of the President in his absence will be assured by the other Vice-Presidents, in the order of precedence defined by the President. The order of precedence is: Viviane Reding, Joaquín Almunia, Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Antonio Tajani, Maroš Šefčovič.
Policy Summary:
The Irish 'yes' to the Lisbon Treaty in a second referendum in October (EurActiv 03/10/09) and the subsequent signature of the text by Czech President Václav Klaus (EurActiv 03/11/09) ended almost a decade of constitutional debate in the European Union.
It culminated on 19 November with the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the first permanent EU president and Baroness Catherine Ashton as High Representative for Foreign Affairs (EurActiv 20/11/09).
Even though the mandate of the current Commission ended on 31 October 2009, it will remain in place until the new college has been approved and has taken office, expected for early 2010.
On 25 November, the EU executive published a list of 'commissioners-designate for the next Commission.’ Commission President José Manuel Barroso will divide the portfolios between the 27 member states, each of which has nominated one representative. The approval of the European Parliament must then be sought.
Currently, only two of the 27 EU heads of state and government are women: Angela Merkel in Germany and Dalia Grybauskaite in Lithuania. The Commission has never had a female president, while just two of 13 European Parliament presidents have been female since direct elections were introduced in 1979. These were both Frenchwomen, Simone Veil (1979-1982) and Nicole Fontaine (1999-2002).
Barroso II
Barroso won unanimous backing from EU heads of state and government at the 18-19 June summit for a second five-year mandate at the head of the European Commission (EurActiv 19/06/09), and on 16 September the European Parliament approved him to steer the European Commission for a second five-year term - not only under the terms of the current Nice Treaty, but also under the tougher criteria of the Lisbon Treaty, when it comes into force.
Two 'new top jobs'
The Treaty of Lisbon, which will enter into force on 1 December 2009, introduces the new 'top jobs.’ Public opinion and the European press have been widely critical of the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton to the EU's new top positions, with Germany in particular feeling it had been tricked into accepting a bad deal (EurActiv 23/11/09).
Cyndi’s perspective:
At this point your head is more then likely spinning as you have read about these elections. What does it all mean? And what does it all have to do with you, as an American? Well, as I have been telling you for months, it is a climate change discussion with underlying baritones of Communism. And I can hear some of you say,” NOT IN AMERICA!” Yes, sad as it is, in America people have been willing to turn their heads for far too long as cold hearted and hot headed individuals put forth their plan to turn the ‘Land of the Free’ into a Godless Socialist-Progressive Country.
Where is the American outrage? Where is Patriotism? Where is love of freedom? The massive transfer of wealth (sharing the wealth) that Obama talked about before he was even elected is about to happen. People really didn’t listen to what was being said. They only saw color as making history. Not bothering to hear what he planned to do once elected. He didn’t have to hide his intentions because people were so in love with the idea of the first black president that they overlooked everything else. Well, change they wanted, change is what they are going to get. I want you to note that color means nothing to me; it is what is inside a person that makes them worth their salt.
The NX1 countries, as countries like the U.S. are called, will have to pay billions of dollars every year for ‘climate debt’ because they claim that we are to blame for the earth’s warming and our President agrees. Where do you think that this compensation will come from? You and I will have to pay. That is where the bogus ‘Cap and Trade’ comes in. You know, the climate change weapon. CO2 gas is supposed to destroying our world. God made that exchange between humans and plant life as I told you last week. So ‘Cap and Trade’ is virtually rationing energy and in return raising taxes where you won’t be able to afford the essentials of everyday living.
Environmental activists with their fear mongering of doom are already pushing for a restructure of our society. At the very center of ‘Cap and Trade’ is a desire to control people’s lives. The ‘Cap and Trade’ legislature will cause your electricity cost and all other utilities to soar. I can’t say it enough; global warming is a far-sod.
The ‘Lisbon Treaty’ that is expected to be signed by many countries, including ours, is not just about climate change and control, just like the ‘Health Bill is not just about health. It is the signing away of what we as Americans hold dear, our sovereignty. Freedom to love and to live the life we want to.
Lord Monckton has tried to warn America not to let our President sign. But, who can not stop him? He has never once listened to the wishes of the people who put him in office. Once signed, we will be part of a One World Government that doesn’t recognize individual rights. We will not have a Constitution of our own cause it will stand for nothing. The newly elected permanent EU president, Herman Van Rompuy, is a Communist and as stated earlier wants to do away with Nation-states. His plans are to have one peoples, one government, one currency, and one constitution. And Christian rights are not a part of that equation.
These elections may not seem important to you at this time but you must take note. You must be informed as the events unfold so you won’t be blind-sided. As I have told you before, you will not be consulted to what you think in this insanity. We are only spectators.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
What Will The Lisbon Treaty Mean For Us?
EurActiv.com
Search for EU president continues after summit
The race to become the EU's first permanent president is still in full force. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who has impressed so far in his temporary EU president role, said today (30 October) that he was not a candidate for the new permanent position to be created by the Lisbon Treaty. Having been complimented by many for his latest diplomatic achievements at the EU summit, such as putting in place the Czech Lisbon treaty guarantees, Reinfeldt remained humble.
With former British Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently out of the running (EurActiv 29/10/09), Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker now appears to be the leading candidate for the position.
Another strong contender, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, was apparently asked by his coalition partner, the Dutch Christian Democrats, not to leave national politics, as his departure would trigger the collapse of the government coalition and lead to early elections.
It is even less obvious at this stage who would be granted the position of High Representative for Foreign Policy, the second top job created by the Lisbon Treaty.
It has been agreed in principle that if a centre-right-affiliated politician becomes Council president, the high representative would be selected from the socialists' ranks. The socialists even set up a 'troika' to negotiate the job, consisting of Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the Party of European Socialists.
The Socialist group in the European Parliament also reportedly has a "shortlist" of candidates, namely Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, Romanian MEP Adrian Severin and three former foreign ministers, Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, Elisabeth Guigou of France and Alfred Gusenbauer of Austria.
But, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the summit, the candidates whose names are mentioned first are never the successful ones.
"Of course we discussed [top jobs] in the corridors," Sarkozy said. He added that the first "difficult" task would be to agree on who the Council president would be, and then start looking for a high representative.
"You can imagine that the political affiliations [and] the geographic origins must be complementary for these posts. We cannot conceive that the three posts would go to persons coming from the same region or the same political family," Sarkozy said.
Note: It took eight years of intricate negotiations for the EU's new reform treaty to see the light of day, since EU leaders first debated its proposed reforms at the 14-15 December Laeken summit in 2001.
Edward Lucas, author of the book 'The New Cold War', says that the new Russian concept of "security architecture" in Europe implies the establishment of a condominium in Europe between Russia and the big European countries, excluding the United States and overriding the interests of small EU countries.
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A video explaining the dangers of a U.N. treaty proposal promoted by President Obama that critics say would lead to a world government has received more than 3.5 million views since WND broke the story on the ominous possibilities, and now there is word from the Obama administration the plan might not be going so smoothly.
In the video, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, asserts the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Dec. 7-18 is to use concern over "global warming" as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen "this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul.
• Washington Times Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.
Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth's temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures.
The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left's long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called "climate debt" - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
www.thepostemail.wordpress.com John Charlton
OBAMA WILL ATTEMPT TO SLIP IT THROUGH CONGRESS TO ACHIEVE HIS GOAL OF MARXIST WORLD DOMINATION
Watch Lord Monckton’s Speech on Video
by John Charlton
(Oct. 16, 2009) — One world government, ruled by heartless and godless Marxists might be here sooner than you think. And the objectives of international Communists might explain all the money and power behind putting Obama into power.
But the mechanism for establishing this one world Marxist government has only recently been revealed: The Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.
So says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, according to Fightin’ Words Blog, gave a scathing critique of the treaty at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference:
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Christian Broadcasting Network’s Dale Hurd:
COPENHAGEN, Denmark and WASHINGTON - The Obama administration says climate change is a serious health issue and the EPA has even labeled carbon dioxide as pollution. Now, many fear global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, but what if the Earth was no longer warming, and began to cool?
Fear of global warming led the House of Representatives to pass "cap and trade" legislation, which is essentially an energy rationing bill and a tax increase on energy that some groups say will take trillions of dollars out of the pockets of families. It still has to pass the Senate.
From Hot to Cold?
But what if the Earth was no longer warming, but cooling? One image shows how the sun has looked for most of 2008 and 2009-- devoid of any sunspots. NASA says sunspot activity is now at a 100 year low.
“ The sun is very cold right now because of the lack of sunspots. And that is one of the reasons we haven't seen warming for the past 12 years or so," said former Virginia state climatologic Patrick Michaels. We had a warming that began about 1977 and ended 1997 and it hasn’t been seen since.”
www.feedproxy.google.com/~r/rightsoup reported:
An Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows that under the House bill– new forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields. Cap and Trade gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees versus food crops.
The bill would allow landowners who “reduce carbon dioxide” by NOT planting food, to sell carbon permits to “polluters” like power plants. Those suckers are going to become quite valuable if Cap and Tax passes. Bonus: credit-owners can sell credits in a new market provided exclusively by Goldman Sachs.
The plan would be hard on ranchers and farmers, and food prices will surely soar. Cap and Tax will touch every corner of our economy as-is, and will make virtually everything more expensive…including food. A reduction in food production would only exacerbate the misery.
PBS Interviewed Kissinger on ‘New World Order’
’There is a need for a new world order,” Kissinger told PBS interviewer, Charlie Rose last year. “I think that at the end of this administration, (talking about Bush) with all it’s turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a New order.
Because people looking in the abyss, even in Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, order expectations must return under a different system.”
Taxing Us for Breathing
By Robert Tracinski
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Last week, the New York Times published an extraordinary editorial complaining "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." The Times editors suggested that the government "start charging for the privilege" by imposing a "carbon tax."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/
EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
WRITTEN BY THOMAS R. EDDLEM
The EPA on April 17 proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.
In fact, about 8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
Translated from bureaucratese, it means that carbon dioxide, methane and other alleged “pollutants” aren’t dangerous and are in fact natural elements. But the fact that human activities such as breathing and car exhaust add to the global amount of carbon dioxide means that CO2 emissions should be regulated, according to the EPA.
Cyndi’s View:
For one thing, once signed, the treaty's enforcement will limit America's sovereignty, regardless of what our Constitution says. They want us to believe that the Lisbon Treaty is merely a International Climate treaty.Will the world unite in Copenhagen? Many fear that the impact on liberties will be a cost they are not willing to pay.
According to EU practice, new treaties enter into force on the first day of the month after they are deposited in Rome. So, you can look for a change in the way we do things, farely quick, once our sovereignty has been signed away.
Our present administration has an agenda to push forward taxation on America the likes of which hasn’t been since before the Boston tea parties of old. Thus, “Cap and Trade” appears. All in the name of ‘Climate Change’ and the reduction of carbon dioxide.
And what of food productions? Yes, even that will not be untouched in the whole scheme of things. This will leave America with food shortages the likes that has never been seen in our history. And whom will they blame for this? Who will be the escape goat?
Essentially, ‘Cap and Trade’ is an energy-rationing bill that will put an unnecessary tax burden on the American people. Climate change is a weapon being used against America. It is a bogus decree to the point of even declaring human breath to be against the environment. God made the CO2 gases to be taken care of by plant life. And in return, plant life gives back to us good clean air.
According to Fox News, the gross domestic product losses increase by two trillion dollars through this plan. It will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average. This will lead to higher unemployment. It will cause electricity rates to go up 90%. Yearly energy bills will increase by $1,500 and gasoline prices will go up 74%. And Americans will have virturally no say in the process.
This ‘Climate Change Treaty’ WILL lead to’Global Government’. It says as much in NX1 paragraph 38 of the treaty document. India and China says they will not join and that they will not pay for what is in the treaty. They emit the most CO2 gases in the world. The NX1 countries, which are the rich, like America, will have to give a 2% tax.
We are watching the “Peace Treaty” that will be signed with the two brothers in the Middle East. That will be the ultimate goal for the up coming New World Leader. The one who makes peace will be a shoe in. So keep your eye on the peace talks and news that will soon bring these signatures to paper.
It all comes down to one thing, if this treaty is signed, our constitution will become no more than paper and ink. And our freedom will only be a fond memory. Our fight for liberty cost many lives and much blood shed. And for what? So people who do not love our country can give it all away?
Petition against climate change treaty here... www.webcommentary.com
Search for EU president continues after summit
The race to become the EU's first permanent president is still in full force. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who has impressed so far in his temporary EU president role, said today (30 October) that he was not a candidate for the new permanent position to be created by the Lisbon Treaty. Having been complimented by many for his latest diplomatic achievements at the EU summit, such as putting in place the Czech Lisbon treaty guarantees, Reinfeldt remained humble.
With former British Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently out of the running (EurActiv 29/10/09), Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker now appears to be the leading candidate for the position.
Another strong contender, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, was apparently asked by his coalition partner, the Dutch Christian Democrats, not to leave national politics, as his departure would trigger the collapse of the government coalition and lead to early elections.
It is even less obvious at this stage who would be granted the position of High Representative for Foreign Policy, the second top job created by the Lisbon Treaty.
It has been agreed in principle that if a centre-right-affiliated politician becomes Council president, the high representative would be selected from the socialists' ranks. The socialists even set up a 'troika' to negotiate the job, consisting of Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the president of the Party of European Socialists.
The Socialist group in the European Parliament also reportedly has a "shortlist" of candidates, namely Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos, Romanian MEP Adrian Severin and three former foreign ministers, Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, Elisabeth Guigou of France and Alfred Gusenbauer of Austria.
But, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the summit, the candidates whose names are mentioned first are never the successful ones.
"Of course we discussed [top jobs] in the corridors," Sarkozy said. He added that the first "difficult" task would be to agree on who the Council president would be, and then start looking for a high representative.
"You can imagine that the political affiliations [and] the geographic origins must be complementary for these posts. We cannot conceive that the three posts would go to persons coming from the same region or the same political family," Sarkozy said.
Note: It took eight years of intricate negotiations for the EU's new reform treaty to see the light of day, since EU leaders first debated its proposed reforms at the 14-15 December Laeken summit in 2001.
Edward Lucas, author of the book 'The New Cold War', says that the new Russian concept of "security architecture" in Europe implies the establishment of a condominium in Europe between Russia and the big European countries, excluding the United States and overriding the interests of small EU countries.
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A video explaining the dangers of a U.N. treaty proposal promoted by President Obama that critics say would lead to a world government has received more than 3.5 million views since WND broke the story on the ominous possibilities, and now there is word from the Obama administration the plan might not be going so smoothly.
In the video, Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, asserts the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Dec. 7-18 is to use concern over "global warming" as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen "this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Lord Christopher Monckton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul.
• Washington Times Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth's temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.
Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth's temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures.
The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left's long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called "climate debt" - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
www.thepostemail.wordpress.com John Charlton
OBAMA WILL ATTEMPT TO SLIP IT THROUGH CONGRESS TO ACHIEVE HIS GOAL OF MARXIST WORLD DOMINATION
Watch Lord Monckton’s Speech on Video
by John Charlton
(Oct. 16, 2009) — One world government, ruled by heartless and godless Marxists might be here sooner than you think. And the objectives of international Communists might explain all the money and power behind putting Obama into power.
But the mechanism for establishing this one world Marxist government has only recently been revealed: The Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.
So says Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, according to Fightin’ Words Blog, gave a scathing critique of the treaty at the recent Minnesota Freemarket Institute Conference:
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Christian Broadcasting Network’s Dale Hurd:
COPENHAGEN, Denmark and WASHINGTON - The Obama administration says climate change is a serious health issue and the EPA has even labeled carbon dioxide as pollution. Now, many fear global warming is the greatest threat to mankind, but what if the Earth was no longer warming, and began to cool?
Fear of global warming led the House of Representatives to pass "cap and trade" legislation, which is essentially an energy rationing bill and a tax increase on energy that some groups say will take trillions of dollars out of the pockets of families. It still has to pass the Senate.
From Hot to Cold?
But what if the Earth was no longer warming, but cooling? One image shows how the sun has looked for most of 2008 and 2009-- devoid of any sunspots. NASA says sunspot activity is now at a 100 year low.
“ The sun is very cold right now because of the lack of sunspots. And that is one of the reasons we haven't seen warming for the past 12 years or so," said former Virginia state climatologic Patrick Michaels. We had a warming that began about 1977 and ended 1997 and it hasn’t been seen since.”
www.feedproxy.google.com/~r/rightsoup reported:
An Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows that under the House bill– new forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields. Cap and Trade gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees versus food crops.
The bill would allow landowners who “reduce carbon dioxide” by NOT planting food, to sell carbon permits to “polluters” like power plants. Those suckers are going to become quite valuable if Cap and Tax passes. Bonus: credit-owners can sell credits in a new market provided exclusively by Goldman Sachs.
The plan would be hard on ranchers and farmers, and food prices will surely soar. Cap and Tax will touch every corner of our economy as-is, and will make virtually everything more expensive…including food. A reduction in food production would only exacerbate the misery.
PBS Interviewed Kissinger on ‘New World Order’
’There is a need for a new world order,” Kissinger told PBS interviewer, Charlie Rose last year. “I think that at the end of this administration, (talking about Bush) with all it’s turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a New order.
Because people looking in the abyss, even in Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, order expectations must return under a different system.”
Taxing Us for Breathing
By Robert Tracinski
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Last week, the New York Times published an extraordinary editorial complaining "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." The Times editors suggested that the government "start charging for the privilege" by imposing a "carbon tax."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/
EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
WRITTEN BY THOMAS R. EDDLEM
The EPA on April 17 proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.
In fact, about 8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
Translated from bureaucratese, it means that carbon dioxide, methane and other alleged “pollutants” aren’t dangerous and are in fact natural elements. But the fact that human activities such as breathing and car exhaust add to the global amount of carbon dioxide means that CO2 emissions should be regulated, according to the EPA.
Cyndi’s View:
For one thing, once signed, the treaty's enforcement will limit America's sovereignty, regardless of what our Constitution says. They want us to believe that the Lisbon Treaty is merely a International Climate treaty.Will the world unite in Copenhagen? Many fear that the impact on liberties will be a cost they are not willing to pay.
According to EU practice, new treaties enter into force on the first day of the month after they are deposited in Rome. So, you can look for a change in the way we do things, farely quick, once our sovereignty has been signed away.
Our present administration has an agenda to push forward taxation on America the likes of which hasn’t been since before the Boston tea parties of old. Thus, “Cap and Trade” appears. All in the name of ‘Climate Change’ and the reduction of carbon dioxide.
And what of food productions? Yes, even that will not be untouched in the whole scheme of things. This will leave America with food shortages the likes that has never been seen in our history. And whom will they blame for this? Who will be the escape goat?
Essentially, ‘Cap and Trade’ is an energy-rationing bill that will put an unnecessary tax burden on the American people. Climate change is a weapon being used against America. It is a bogus decree to the point of even declaring human breath to be against the environment. God made the CO2 gases to be taken care of by plant life. And in return, plant life gives back to us good clean air.
According to Fox News, the gross domestic product losses increase by two trillion dollars through this plan. It will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average. This will lead to higher unemployment. It will cause electricity rates to go up 90%. Yearly energy bills will increase by $1,500 and gasoline prices will go up 74%. And Americans will have virturally no say in the process.
This ‘Climate Change Treaty’ WILL lead to’Global Government’. It says as much in NX1 paragraph 38 of the treaty document. India and China says they will not join and that they will not pay for what is in the treaty. They emit the most CO2 gases in the world. The NX1 countries, which are the rich, like America, will have to give a 2% tax.
We are watching the “Peace Treaty” that will be signed with the two brothers in the Middle East. That will be the ultimate goal for the up coming New World Leader. The one who makes peace will be a shoe in. So keep your eye on the peace talks and news that will soon bring these signatures to paper.
It all comes down to one thing, if this treaty is signed, our constitution will become no more than paper and ink. And our freedom will only be a fond memory. Our fight for liberty cost many lives and much blood shed. And for what? So people who do not love our country can give it all away?
Petition against climate change treaty here... www.webcommentary.com
Friday, November 20, 2009
WHAT HAS STARTED HAPPENING EVEN BEFORE THE HEALTH BILL IS PASSED
10-09 Farm Wars Barbara Peterson reported that Pennsylvania drafted a mandatory vaccination law. The law states that the public health authority may, for such period as the state of public health emergency exists, compel a person to be vaccinated or treated, or both, for an infectious disease subject to the following provisions: (1) Vaccination may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the public health authority. (2) A vaccine may not be given if the public health authority has reason to know that a particular individual is likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccination. Since the CDC has already declared that individuals are unlikely to suffer serious harm from vaccination, they have a free pass. Wasn't that easy?
Barbara went on to say that States are getting ready for the mandatory vaccination stage of the eugenics program, and Pennsylvania is right on schedule with Pennsylvania House Bill 492, the “Emergency Health Powers Act.”
Worrier Society Radio reported America should take note of the recent Verichip developments creating the perfect storm to link financial, dentification, and health information together with a single implantable rfid device.
A Reuters Tue Apr 28, 2009 article detailed VeriChip Corporation`s Healthcare Division Expanding Existing Development Partnership to include new biological and environmental sensor applications- Article Here
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 has Buried in the legislation is a provision for a class 2 implantable device for participants. The design of the legislation is to make it very difficult for anyone to oppose the plan once passed.
House Resolution 3200 was crafted with the intention of using a Class II RFID microchip to link personal and medical information of participants and will relay that information to the government.
This is why Mr. Obama is pressured to promote the legislation regardless of opposition from the American People. -All under the guise of efficiency and the public good - House Resolution 3200.
Conservatives For Patients’ Rights reported:
Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility — the four "pillars" of patients' rights — will result in our government truly becoming a "nanny-state," making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us.
A patient must have the right to choose their own doctor, and must protect a consumer's right to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs and budget.
This health care overhaul is an inexcusable assault on the Constitution and everything America stands for. Here are some of its many shocking and appalling provisions (as copiously tracked by Peter Fleckstein)
PG 22: Mandates that the federal government will audit books of all employers who self insure
PG 30, Sec 123: Establishes a government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
PG 29, Lines 4-16: Directly rations health care for the elderly.
PG 42: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you.
PG 50, Section 152: Extends benefits and coverage to illegal immigrants.
PG 58: The creation of a national ID health card and a comprehensive federal database containing streaming data on every American's personal financial records.
PG 59: The federal government accesses your bank accounts for mandatory funds transfers.
PG 65, Sec 164: Creates special, federally subsidized coverage for Unions and "Community Organizing" groups.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Dictates the benefits packages of all private health insurance plans.
PG 85, Line 7: Limits what private insurers can offer (rationed care).
PG 91, Lines 4-7: Mandates that health care providers pay for interpreters for illegal immigrants.
Pg 95, Lines 8-18: The mandatory use of ACORN and Americorps for signing up Americans to government insurance.
PG 85, Line 7: Imposes more limits on coverage (rationing).
PG 102, Lines 12-18: Mandates Medicare for all who fit criteria (removes all choice).
PG 124, Lines 24-25: Bans companies from suing the federal government, bans the entire judicial system from hearing any cases on the legitimacy of this blatantly unconstitutional socialist health care takeover (no judicial review allowed whatsoever).
PG 127, Lines 1-16: Instructs doctors/AMA on what salaries they are allowed to make.
PG 145, Line 15-17: Requires all employers to enroll all new employees in the government system (no choice whatsoever).
PG 126, Lines 22-25: Requires employers to independently provide insurance for part-time workers, whether they can afford it or not (no choice).
PG 149, Lines 16-24: Imposes an 8% payroll tax penalty for any employer (making over $400k) who fails to force his employees onto government insurance.
PG 150, Lines 9-13: Employers making between $251k and $400k pay 2-6% penalty.
PG 167, Lines 18-23: Imposes 2.5% income tax penalty on any privately-insured individual who fails to get "adequate" private insurance.
PG 170, Lines 1-3: Stipulates that all non-resident aliens pay nothing (we foot the bill).
PG 195: Federal officers will have full access to every citizen's most private records.
Pg 239, Line 14-24: Rations Medicaid services for low-income Seniors.
Pg 241, Line 6-8: Mandates that all doctors be paid the same, regardless of specialty.
PG 253, Line 10-18: Imposes federally determined price tag for the worth of every doctor's time and services.
PG 265, Sec 1131: Imposes controls on productivity for private health care companies.
PG 268, Sec 1141: Imposes regulations on rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
PG 272, Sec. 1145: Cancer treatment rationing.
PG 280, Sec 1151: Imposes penalties and fines on private hospitals for "preventable" visits.
PG 298, Lines 9-11: Imposes penalties and fines on private hospitals for readmissions after initial treatment (fix it on the first try or suffer the consequences).
PG 317, Lines 13-20: Prohibits doctors from purchasing or investing in medical care facilities.
PG 321, Line 2-13: Pretends to give hospitals the choice to go fully federal, but only if local "community" groups (ACORN) approve.
PG 335, Line 16-25, Pg 336-339: Imposes more rationing of services.
PG 341, Lines 3-9: Creates the federal power to arbitrarily disqualify HMOs, forcing people onto government care at random.
PG 354, Sec 1177 - Rationing of care for special needs people.
PG 379, Sec 1191: Creates new Telehealth bureaucracy (nanny state health care by phone).
PG 425, Lines 4-12: Creates mandatory end of life consultation.
PG 425, Lines 17-19: Mandatory government instruction and consultation on living wills, durable power of attorney, etc.
PG 429, Lines 10-12: Empowers the federal government to order end-of-life plans through something called, "advanced care consultation."
Pg 429, Lines 13-25: Puts the federal government in charge of which doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430, Lines 11-15: Puts the federal government in complete control of what care you receive at the end of your life.
World Net Daily.com reported:
President Obama’s health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers."
For instance, the cover story, "Medical Murder," documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, "are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses," many dying "in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs." Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.
Columnist Charlotte Allen for the Los Angeles Times reported:
In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there was no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.
And for those who have been paying close attention, Obama himself has ever so gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die. Families, Obama said, need better information so they don't approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,"
CNSNews.com Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter: Congress Mandating That People Buy Health Insurance Like States Requiring Driver’s Licenses, Mark Warner says.
“Some Republicans have argued that the health care bill is unconstitutional. Does the Constitution give Congress the authority to mandate whether individuals should purchase health insurance – to mandate that they have to purchase health insurance?”
Warner: “The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver’s licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that’s being made by some folks.
Cyndi’s View:
Health Care involves human dignity, the right to choose and make life and death decisions. Tyranny is here folks. Is it too late to stop government from forcing the people of this great country into buying insurance they may not need in the first place? There is no freedom of chose in that. After all, some are considering making it the same as requiring a driver’s license.
If you choose not to have insurance there will be penalties for not following this mandate. Such as, fines up to $1900, 2.5 % of your income taken and/or jail for a year.
Employers will be required to pay at least 75% of the cost of their employees health care, which will force them to have to give way to the government run Health Care. Not only is this an added burden to those who need employees to run their businesses, but also employers will be less likely to expand. They may even be forced to lay off their employees and make their businesses smaller in order to stay a float.
In the 900 pages of the health Bill- they want to tell the citizens of the U.S. when and how many babies they can have.
On page 831- they want assigned people to come to your home, before and after you have a baby, to instruct you on what is allowed to be taught your child according to government rules. Excuse me, but do you want government deciding what you can teach your own child?
What if, say your loved one has dementia? Well, in that case, they would either have the option of one year or $30,000. Of care. Then they would be provided with Hospice to help their end of life care. Get the picture?
We hear of ratings and death panels, as people say, “Not in America!” But the fact remains that cost effectiveness is going to be the foremost thing on the czars’ minds as they consider who gets the care and who doesn’t. This is a real consideration as political ideologies are in play and ‘Nationalized Health Care’ draws closer.
This Bill isn’t even supposed to take its place as law for four years after it is signed. So, what is the hurry? They, the Progressive Democrat’s, know if it’s not signed soon that they may loose the ground they have gained. Some of the Democrats may not make it next term. America’s not pleased with what they have been doing as the majority.
My question is that if the Health care Bill is so great then why doesn’t congress want to participate in such a program?
References:
www.faceofgovernmenthealthcare.com
www.cpright.org
www.cnsnews.com
www.wnd.com
www.farmwars.info/
Barbara went on to say that States are getting ready for the mandatory vaccination stage of the eugenics program, and Pennsylvania is right on schedule with Pennsylvania House Bill 492, the “Emergency Health Powers Act.”
Worrier Society Radio reported America should take note of the recent Verichip developments creating the perfect storm to link financial, dentification, and health information together with a single implantable rfid device.
A Reuters Tue Apr 28, 2009 article detailed VeriChip Corporation`s Healthcare Division Expanding Existing Development Partnership to include new biological and environmental sensor applications- Article Here
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 has Buried in the legislation is a provision for a class 2 implantable device for participants. The design of the legislation is to make it very difficult for anyone to oppose the plan once passed.
House Resolution 3200 was crafted with the intention of using a Class II RFID microchip to link personal and medical information of participants and will relay that information to the government.
This is why Mr. Obama is pressured to promote the legislation regardless of opposition from the American People. -All under the guise of efficiency and the public good - House Resolution 3200.
Conservatives For Patients’ Rights reported:
Any serious discussion of health care reform that does not include choice, competition, accountability and responsibility — the four "pillars" of patients' rights — will result in our government truly becoming a "nanny-state," making decisions based on what is best for society and government rather than individuals deciding what is best for each of us.
A patient must have the right to choose their own doctor, and must protect a consumer's right to choose the health insurance that best fits their needs and budget.
This health care overhaul is an inexcusable assault on the Constitution and everything America stands for. Here are some of its many shocking and appalling provisions (as copiously tracked by Peter Fleckstein)
PG 22: Mandates that the federal government will audit books of all employers who self insure
PG 30, Sec 123: Establishes a government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
PG 29, Lines 4-16: Directly rations health care for the elderly.
PG 42: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you.
PG 50, Section 152: Extends benefits and coverage to illegal immigrants.
PG 58: The creation of a national ID health card and a comprehensive federal database containing streaming data on every American's personal financial records.
PG 59: The federal government accesses your bank accounts for mandatory funds transfers.
PG 65, Sec 164: Creates special, federally subsidized coverage for Unions and "Community Organizing" groups.
PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Dictates the benefits packages of all private health insurance plans.
PG 85, Line 7: Limits what private insurers can offer (rationed care).
PG 91, Lines 4-7: Mandates that health care providers pay for interpreters for illegal immigrants.
Pg 95, Lines 8-18: The mandatory use of ACORN and Americorps for signing up Americans to government insurance.
PG 85, Line 7: Imposes more limits on coverage (rationing).
PG 102, Lines 12-18: Mandates Medicare for all who fit criteria (removes all choice).
PG 124, Lines 24-25: Bans companies from suing the federal government, bans the entire judicial system from hearing any cases on the legitimacy of this blatantly unconstitutional socialist health care takeover (no judicial review allowed whatsoever).
PG 127, Lines 1-16: Instructs doctors/AMA on what salaries they are allowed to make.
PG 145, Line 15-17: Requires all employers to enroll all new employees in the government system (no choice whatsoever).
PG 126, Lines 22-25: Requires employers to independently provide insurance for part-time workers, whether they can afford it or not (no choice).
PG 149, Lines 16-24: Imposes an 8% payroll tax penalty for any employer (making over $400k) who fails to force his employees onto government insurance.
PG 150, Lines 9-13: Employers making between $251k and $400k pay 2-6% penalty.
PG 167, Lines 18-23: Imposes 2.5% income tax penalty on any privately-insured individual who fails to get "adequate" private insurance.
PG 170, Lines 1-3: Stipulates that all non-resident aliens pay nothing (we foot the bill).
PG 195: Federal officers will have full access to every citizen's most private records.
Pg 239, Line 14-24: Rations Medicaid services for low-income Seniors.
Pg 241, Line 6-8: Mandates that all doctors be paid the same, regardless of specialty.
PG 253, Line 10-18: Imposes federally determined price tag for the worth of every doctor's time and services.
PG 265, Sec 1131: Imposes controls on productivity for private health care companies.
PG 268, Sec 1141: Imposes regulations on rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.
PG 272, Sec. 1145: Cancer treatment rationing.
PG 280, Sec 1151: Imposes penalties and fines on private hospitals for "preventable" visits.
PG 298, Lines 9-11: Imposes penalties and fines on private hospitals for readmissions after initial treatment (fix it on the first try or suffer the consequences).
PG 317, Lines 13-20: Prohibits doctors from purchasing or investing in medical care facilities.
PG 321, Line 2-13: Pretends to give hospitals the choice to go fully federal, but only if local "community" groups (ACORN) approve.
PG 335, Line 16-25, Pg 336-339: Imposes more rationing of services.
PG 341, Lines 3-9: Creates the federal power to arbitrarily disqualify HMOs, forcing people onto government care at random.
PG 354, Sec 1177 - Rationing of care for special needs people.
PG 379, Sec 1191: Creates new Telehealth bureaucracy (nanny state health care by phone).
PG 425, Lines 4-12: Creates mandatory end of life consultation.
PG 425, Lines 17-19: Mandatory government instruction and consultation on living wills, durable power of attorney, etc.
PG 429, Lines 10-12: Empowers the federal government to order end-of-life plans through something called, "advanced care consultation."
Pg 429, Lines 13-25: Puts the federal government in charge of which doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430, Lines 11-15: Puts the federal government in complete control of what care you receive at the end of your life.
World Net Daily.com reported:
President Obama’s health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers."
For instance, the cover story, "Medical Murder," documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, "are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses," many dying "in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs." Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.
Columnist Charlotte Allen for the Los Angeles Times reported:
In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there was no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... Why not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.
And for those who have been paying close attention, Obama himself has ever so gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die. Families, Obama said, need better information so they don't approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,"
CNSNews.com Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter: Congress Mandating That People Buy Health Insurance Like States Requiring Driver’s Licenses, Mark Warner says.
“Some Republicans have argued that the health care bill is unconstitutional. Does the Constitution give Congress the authority to mandate whether individuals should purchase health insurance – to mandate that they have to purchase health insurance?”
Warner: “The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver’s licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that’s being made by some folks.
Cyndi’s View:
Health Care involves human dignity, the right to choose and make life and death decisions. Tyranny is here folks. Is it too late to stop government from forcing the people of this great country into buying insurance they may not need in the first place? There is no freedom of chose in that. After all, some are considering making it the same as requiring a driver’s license.
If you choose not to have insurance there will be penalties for not following this mandate. Such as, fines up to $1900, 2.5 % of your income taken and/or jail for a year.
Employers will be required to pay at least 75% of the cost of their employees health care, which will force them to have to give way to the government run Health Care. Not only is this an added burden to those who need employees to run their businesses, but also employers will be less likely to expand. They may even be forced to lay off their employees and make their businesses smaller in order to stay a float.
In the 900 pages of the health Bill- they want to tell the citizens of the U.S. when and how many babies they can have.
On page 831- they want assigned people to come to your home, before and after you have a baby, to instruct you on what is allowed to be taught your child according to government rules. Excuse me, but do you want government deciding what you can teach your own child?
What if, say your loved one has dementia? Well, in that case, they would either have the option of one year or $30,000. Of care. Then they would be provided with Hospice to help their end of life care. Get the picture?
We hear of ratings and death panels, as people say, “Not in America!” But the fact remains that cost effectiveness is going to be the foremost thing on the czars’ minds as they consider who gets the care and who doesn’t. This is a real consideration as political ideologies are in play and ‘Nationalized Health Care’ draws closer.
This Bill isn’t even supposed to take its place as law for four years after it is signed. So, what is the hurry? They, the Progressive Democrat’s, know if it’s not signed soon that they may loose the ground they have gained. Some of the Democrats may not make it next term. America’s not pleased with what they have been doing as the majority.
My question is that if the Health care Bill is so great then why doesn’t congress want to participate in such a program?
References:
www.faceofgovernmenthealthcare.com
www.cpright.org
www.cnsnews.com
www.wnd.com
www.farmwars.info/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)