9/11 First Responders Need Your Help!


09/11/2001 – This is a day that also lives in infamy. I have so many provable facts showing our governments involvement, who profited (government and corporations), and who didn’t (Saddam, Osama, Al Qaeda, Terrorists in general). But when I try and talk to the average person, even my own family about these obvious facts, I am ridiculed and am told I am being disrespectful to the innocent victims, the police, the firefighters, the health care workers, and the multitude of ground zero volunteers and first responders who gave so much of themselves on that day and in the months that followed.

Today, I’d like instead to share with you what actually happened to all of those brave volunteers and city police, firefighters, and first responders who became the beacons of heroism in the remembrance of 9/11/2001 – and the champions of the “I couldn’t be bothered” crowd – the ones who use these first responders and the victims of 9/11 to make themselves feel better about telling me to shut up about 9/11.

The official story is a lie. And this article is for all the people out there that say things like “Our government could never be involved in something like that.” -Or- “You’re being disrespectful to the dead and their families.”

In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. We “truthers” are the only ones who know about the plight of these families and that of the first responders. And most of them want a new investigation into the obvious lies about that day.

The way in which these “hero’s” have been treated after 9/11 provides perhaps the most in depth look into our governments horrific capability of crime and lack of empathy and support to its citizens. The following information shows once and for all that our government is not only capable, but also complicit in 9/11 and the crimes surrounding it.

–Ω–

Let’s start with the numbers… These are the most current facts and figures with regards to all of the first responders of 9/11:

Of the 435 congressional districts in the 50 United States, 431 of those districts were represented at ground zero by volunteers and first responders on 9/11.

Around 90,000 volunteers and first responders worked or helped out at or around ground zero.

40,000 plus of these first responders actually worked on the “pile” – the name given to the WTC rubble pile.

Of these 40,000 plus first responders, 70% of them are sick with cancer and respiratory illnesses related to “the pile”. 1000’s of the other first responders and volunteers who had more limited contact with the air and dust at ground zero are also suffering from these respiratory illnesses and cancers across the country.

Almost all first responders (around 90%) suffer from some form of acid reflux disease.

To date (12/01/09), per the New York Health Dept, more than 830 first responders have died from 9/11 related illnesses – at least 300 of those were from cancers – others from respiratory complications, smoke inhalation disease, GURD, suicide, etc…

→ CANCER?

To understand how cancer comes into the equation, we must analyze a few facts with regards to the World Trade Center complex itself:

Larry Silverstein became the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex just a few weeks before 9/11, purchasing it for the bargain basement price of only $15 million dollars.

With this purchase, and perhaps explaining the low price of the sale, Mr. Silverstein inherited a very low occupancy rate, with many of the WTC offices un-leased.

But more importantly, he also inherited a mandatory-by-law asbestos removal problem. All of the fireproofing and insulation in the towers was made with asbestos, which causes cancer, respiratory illnesses, and other complications when breathed in by us humans.

The asbestos removal process would have cost Mr. Silverstein over 1 billion dollars to complete in all of the WTC buildings.

But as luck would have it, before Larry signed the lease to the WTC complex, he reworked the insurance policy to specifically cover “terrorist attacks”. Remember, this lease was written and signed just a few weeks before 9/11/2001.

After 9/11, and before the asbestos removal project was ever able to happen, Silverstein received $7 billion dollars as a settlement from his insurance policy due to the timely “terrorist attack” clause. That’s a 6.85 billion dollar profit in two weeks!

On the day of 9/11, each of the Twin Towers was impossibly pulverized, turned to dust, and somehow totally destroyed in a matter of seconds.

Therefore, tons and tons of asbestos and other lethal, cancer-causing particles were released into the air on 9/11, and were breathed in by the unsuspecting, altruistic, and heroic 9/11 first responders… and anyone living in lower Manhattan.

→ GOVERNMENT TO THE RESCUE?

In 2002, the government closed the window for first responders to enter a claim for 9/11 related illnesses. This means that first responders with any delayed symptoms like blood cancers, of which it takes years to show any symptoms of, or the brave few who just refused to complain of their illness until it was too late, were denied any government assistance, and could not pay for their own health-care and hospital bills.

In 2004, congress created a 1 billion dollar fund from taxpayer money, called the “Captive Insurance Fund”. This money was directed to specifically be used to protect the New York City governments from the law suits of these sick and dying first responders with 9/11 related illnesses.

To date, only 6 out of the 1000’s of first responder cases have been settled in court – for a total of $300,000.

There are currently over 8000 first responders involved in just one class action lawsuit against the government to pay for their medical bills related to 9/11. This case has been drawn out for years, as the sick hero’s of 9/11 slowly die from cancer and respiratory diseases.

→SUICIDE?

Yes. Sadly, suicide is the only option for some of these brave first responders that we insultingly call our heroes.

Why? Have you ever tried to squeeze a penny out of the government? These heroes are denied benefits or financial compensation. They are too crippled to work, and have been laid off from their normal jobs due to these unrelated illnesses (unrelated because many of them volunteered to work on the pile). So with no job, no medical coverage, no government benefits or help in any way, and no help from the people who continuously praise them yet use them as an excuse to ignore all of the facts of 9/11 while ignoring their plight, it is easy to see why suicide may be a last resort for these first responders, who must live with chronic pain and debilitating diseases. The depression felt must be overwhelming, realizing that your government and your country has forgotten about you.

→ENTER THE FEALGOOD FOUNDATION!

John Feal was injured on December 17th, 2001 while working on “the pile”. An 8000 pound steel girder fell on his foot, crushing it and permanently disabling him. It took John 4½ years of struggling to finally get disability checks from the Social Security Administration. He suffers from Gastro-intestinal disease, respiratory complications, and has post-traumatic stress syndrome.

He was denied medical care or government assistance once he could no longer do his job, because of his injury.

He started the FealGood Foundation, hoping to support and expose the government’s inaction and purposeful negligence in its responsibility to the volunteers and first responders of 9/11, and after seeing many of his friends and co-workers become ill or die from these related illnesses and cancers.

He just attended his 76th funeral.

Because of his foundation, this travesty of government negligence has since come to light. He and his foundation and its supporters have forced this issue to be addressed in congress, and were instrumental in introducing congressional bill H.R. 847 – which would create a multi-billion dollar fund that would pay for all first responder’s health care bills, and provide continuing medical care for these sick and dying heroes, who no longer have medical care due to losing their jobs because of the illnesses caused by volunteering and working at the World Trade Center site.

Now, because of this mans quest for justice, the following hospitals see first responders and volunteers for treatment from 9/11 related illnesses and cancers on a continuing basis:

• Mt. Sinai hospital sees over 12,000 patients
• Long Island Occupational – over 4500 patients
• Robert Wood Johnson in New Jersey – over 2000 patients
• Elmhurst Hospital – over 3000 patients
• Bellevue Hospital – over 3000 patients – offers a free exam for              9/11 related illness
• Staten Island Hospital – over 2500 patients

Mr. Feal continuously campaigns for these forgotten heroes, and recently met with speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi and other government officials. Unfortunately, the humongous Obama Health Care bill has overshadowed the FealGood bill, and it awaits committee approval before official congressional vote. In other words, it’s conveniently wrapped up in government red tape!

Unfortunately, the suicide rate for these first responders, who cannot cope with the symptoms and pain caused by these inhalation based diseases and cancers due to lack of medical care and who are unable to work because of them, is a sad look into the way our national heroess – from Vietnam veterans to 9/11 first responders – are treated by our government, and indirectly, by the American people, who would rather give billions each year to Starbucks for it’s horrible burnt coffee beans and mass produced pastries than to a charity to help those who selflessly helped others, and are dying because of it.

Ignorance is the bliss of those who refuse to see the truth. And if this is the way those who selfishly help others are treated after the glamour and media ratings frenzy is over, I must wonder if I myself wont think twice about putting my life into harms way in order to save someone else’s.

We all repeat like parrots, phrases like “I support the troops”… but 1000’s of our soldiers are committing suicide as our government refuses medical treatment for their injuries and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

“200,000 people who have put on the uniform and served this country sleep homeless on the streets…” -Aaron Glantz.

The PTS experienced by these first responders and volunteers are also going un-treated, and potentially 10’s of thousands will die unless they receive financial and medical help from our government. But you must remember, we are our government. What they do reflects upon us. And their inaction and deceit with regards to our soldiers and to these first responders is on our shoulders.

And so in conclusion, I ask that you become who you project yourself to be. Support the troops by finding out the truth about how they are being treated by our government both in combat, and especially upon returning home. Check out the FealGood Foundation online, and instead of paying $5.00 for a crappy cup of burnt, oily coffee tomorrow, give $5.00 to help pay for a so-called American hero’s life.

Please visit the FealGood Foundation’s website at:

www.fealgoodfoundation.com

And never, ever, put down or dismiss the facts behind 9/11, and the selfless people who are trying to expose the truth, including the shameful way our government has behaved regarding its first responder heroes, and until you see the facts for yourself. And for you parrots out there who squawk over and over again that our government could never do something like that… I think we just proved that statement to be false.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

December 11, 2009

Property Tax Is Extortion By Your Government


I went to a public hearing the other day about a raise in property taxes, this time by the county instead of the state or city. I had about ten minutes worth of facts and figures to read, but I was required to speak what I wanted to say in only three minutes. This was impossible, and I was enraged that free speech and the redress of grievances to our tyrannical government has been reduced to a circus show where the council would only allow my free speech in three minute segments. That is no longer free speech, but rather a privilege granted by the ruling class to the peasantry.

I just wanted to share with you the opener to my speech, since this seems the only truly free forum in which I can speak!

It went like this:

–Ω–

First, I’d just like to say thank you to the board in keeping the constitutional rights of public assembly and the freedom of speech alive in maintaining these types of public hearings. I keep hope that this right is never taken away from the people in what will always remain a representative government. To that end… you who sit on this panel are the representatives of the people, and simply defined that means that the peoples will is paramount to yours.

Now, I’d like talk about taxes. Specifically in this case… property taxes.

I wonder if anyone can tell me the difference between property taxes and rent?

If I rent an apartment, I have to pay a tax – which is called rent – to stay in that apartment.

Likewise, if I live on my own land, in my own house, I also have to pay rent – which is called a tax – a property tax – to stay on that land and in that house.

So is there any difference between rent and property tax?

Well, as far as I can tell, no there is not.

Let’s qualify this…

If I cease to pay my rent to my landlord for his apartment, the consequences of that action are for the landlord to evict me, with the city and state government’s support, of course. This I understand, for it is not my property for which I am living.

But what about my own land and home… the land that my ancestors might have settled over 200 years ago before a property tax scam was even imagined… heck, before Salt Lake City was even imagined? The home that I might own outright, having paid all debt owed for that land and home? What if I cease to pay my rent (in the form of property taxes) to my landlord (who is the government)? What will happen?

Well, as far as I know, the government will just evict me from my own home who I am the landlord of.

So is this a tax, or is it rent.

Lets go even further and call it for what it really is… extortion. Plain and simple.

For through eminent domain, you can take my property anytime you want. Just like a landlord can sell his property and kick you out of your apartment, anytime he likes.

If you homeowners out there don’t agree with me on this, then I invite you to stop paying your property tax… your “rent” to the government, and see what happens…

A legal tax on the citizenry must be apportioned. But it should also be avoidable. If I don’t want to pay the gas tax, I can choose not to drive. If I don’t want to pay the sales tax, I can barter, trade, or grow my own food (as long as the government with all of their codes allows me to do this).

But, as a homeowner, I cannot avoid this tax, unless I want to move and pay rent to someone else. I must pay it or loose my home. Kinda reminds me of protection money, gangland style… The American dream of owning a home is nothing more than glorified rent, with a false sense of security through “limited” ownership, and the stature attached to that dream.

So who regulates the mafia, when they decide to raise the protection money rates, or the government from raising the rent in the form of property taxes?

This is one I wish I had an answer to, though I don’t.

But if every citizen who shows up to this hearing today has a negative response to this “rent through tax” increase, then the logical conclusion to this hearing is that this increase on an already burdensome tax fund should not be allowed. This would be an example of that representative government I was talking about earlier. Meaning that you, as representatives of the people of your county have been made perfectly aware and clear that this tax increase is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people that you supposedly represent and who responded to this announcement and hearing. Therefore the outcome of this hearing should also be clear, which is a resounding NO NEW TAXES!

Now I can only assume, that if you, as a representative public panel, approve this new unavoidable tax increase, that would mean that you are in fact not representing your constitutes; the people who elected you, and are in fact representing someone, or something else.

I have other pertinent documentation that clearly shows that the money to pay for these improvements and initiatives is quite available through other government means. However, I would ask that someone else in the honorable constituents waiting to speak whom also opposes this increase, to allow me their time to speak on behalf of the citizenry. For I assure you, this is the most important of information. Anyone…?

–Ω–

This is dedicated to the Salt Lake County Council, who is no doubt complicit in the theft and wealth building from its starving taxpayer base, for cutting me off and threatening police interaction if anyone spoke out of line. May you rot in Hell for the ruin you have brought unto this city and collectively through all other governments, this country.

They voted in favor of the tax increase, by the way.

More to come on this government wealth which could eliminate all taxes in future posts…

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
December 10, 2001

Want Peace? Update The Geneva Convention!


After delving into the world of the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes bills, I have come up with an idea. A good idea.

You see, the Geneva Conventions don’t effect the occupations and invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan due to the fact that no official declaration of war was made by Congress. This make these so-called ‘wars’ illegal and unconstitutional. More importantly, it makes the war crimes, torture, and murder of innocent men women and children, including some of our own troops, not bound by these Geneva Conventions. (read full research: here)

The idea is quite simple. And yet it would put a stop immediately to the occupations happening now, and would halt the movement of troops into Iran, potentially stopping World War 3!

This, I know, is a bold statement… but please hear me out.

I think we should look into amending the Geneva Conventions to state two things:

1) These conventions shall include all signatory states and all peoples, in wartime or in peacetime, in regards to any use of military, police, or private forces for foreign or domestic purposes, and shall not be circumvented by rhetoric and “peace-keeping” efforts or undeclared war efforts, occupations, or invasions.

2) These conventions shall be retro-active to the date of their original, pre-amendment writing, and shall make all who have knowingly violated these conventions and continue to do so, bound by and subjected to the fines and punishments therein.

This simple amendment would solve a lot of our problems, and force legaly out of office and into exile or jail, and even the execution of many old war criminals and current politicians who have been complacent or complicit in said war crimes against the Middle East and around the world. This includes Mr. Bush and his father, President Obama (who is now attacking Pakistan and weeks away from entering Iran) Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the countless others in the gang of war criminals who, until now, have gotten away with murder most foul simply because the peoples of the world are semantically unprotected by these conventions and human rights ideals.

It would also reign in our soldiers, and for that matter Blackwater and other private security firms, since the Geneva Conventions require that the State (country) is responsible its soldiers actions, and punishable there in.

If you don’t yet see the profound impact this one amendment would have on the world and the stopping of Americas unconstitutional killing fields in the Middle-East, let me explain:

Since the president and his cabinet are currently not constrained by these conventions – since we are not officially at war – they are free to do what ever they want, and will continue to pass heinous legislation and commit fraudulent acts of terror in undeclared wars against all countries, including our own. They will continue to be able to snatch anybody they please off of the streets in the act of rendition and imprison them, unconstrained by any human rights violations treaties. This is why they are able to torture and not be charged with war crimes.

If the Geneva Conventions were to be made to include all conflicts, wars, undeclared wars, invasions, prisons, prison camps, occupations, and anything else related to military and private security forces and prisoners or “detainees” and “enemy combatants” where ever they go, there would be no more war… unless Congress legally and constitutionally declared it, in which case their actions would be scrutinized under Geneva Conventions anyway.

This means peace, plain and simple.

This means that the crimes of 911 could be heard in a Geneva Conventions forum, no longer covered up by Americas fraudulent media.

This might also mean that our media might be complicit in the cover-up, and therefore indirectly responsible for the propagation these war crimes.

This means that anyone currently or whom was in the past involved in these illegal war crimes will be immediately punished and removed from office, and this would let loose the strangle-hold that the elites, corporations, and hopefully the United Nations have on our once legitimate system of government.

———————–

And so, I need help… Anyone that can tell me where to start with this or help me to get this idea going into reality would be greatly appreciated. Or, if you want to take it and run, by all means do so. Just keep me informed.

Any volunteers?

Contact me at: (tailgunnerblog@yahoo.com)

Thanks for reading,

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Monday, October 12, 2009

America Never Declared War, So War Crimes Don’t Apply ???


Is America at war with Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Pakistan?

The answer to these questions is perhaps the most important concept that the citizens of the republic of the United States can possibly understand.

The answer is… NO!

No legal or constitutional declaration of war has ever been stated, and therefore America is not officially in a state of war. And the implications of this are more far reaching than any of us realize.

Why is this fact so vitally important to the heath and welfare of America?

If you understand nothing else about the so-called “war on terror”, I wish it to be this: without an official declaration of war by way of congressional decree under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, America has no authority or legitimacy to attack, occupy, kill, or enter forcibly into another country. The president of the United States cannot declare war; only the congress can approve war. This means that our president, his cabinet, the Congress, and judicial branches of government are all in violation of our most cherished laws under the Constitution of the United States.

The following are the reasons this fact is so important to comprehend, and why if we don’t stop this from continuing to occur – in Pakistan, then Iran, and eventually in our own beautiful, once free United States itself – We The People of the United States of America will lose everything our Constitution grants to us.

—-> The Geneva Convention – this set of documents, of which America is a signatory, are international treaties binding all States that have accepted them. Almost every State in the world has signed the Geneva Conventions. The 1st and 2nd Geneva Conventions straight forwardly state that the sick, wounded and shipwrecked must be cared for humanely and adequately by the enemy state. “Combatants” must treat members of the enemy armies who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked as carefully as they would treat their own injured or sick. All efforts must be made to collect the dead quickly, to confirm death by medical examination, and to identify bodies and protect them from robbery. Medical equipment must not be intentionally destroyed, and medical establishments and vehicles must not be attacked, damaged or prevented from operating even if they do not contain patients. The 3rd Geneva Convention states: “Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands are to be considered without exception to be in the power of the enemy State, not in the hands of the individuals or troops who have captured them. The state is therefore responsible for their soldier’s treatment of POW’s.

The convention clearly states that Prisoners of war MUST BE:

– Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honor.

– Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.

– Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.

– Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.

– Supplied with adequate food and clothing.

– Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor’s troops.

– Given the medical care their state of health demands.

– Paid for any work they do.

– Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards).

– Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

In addition, prisoners of war MUST NOT BE:

-Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number.

– Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).

– Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.

– Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons.

– Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.

The fourth Geneva Convention is: “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, all individuals “who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power”

Protected civilians MUST BE:

– Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.

– Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.

– Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.

– Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. – Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict.

– Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians MUST NOT BE:

– Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. – Forced to give information.

– Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.

– Punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. – Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

In reference to torture, the Geneva Convention states:

“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission … causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

“Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.”

“The following acts are and shall remain prohibited … cruel treatment and torture; … Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; “

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory … are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

(Geneva Convention, 1949)
———————————-

So, this certainly and without a doubt states that torture is specifically not permitted under these conventions. So why is our government and military (and private security forces contracted by the U.S. government) torturing, maiming, raping, humiliating, water-boarding, and mistreating prisoners and civilians and getting away with it? Why hasn’t anyone called foul: a violation of the Geneva Conventions against innocent civilians and prisoners of war?

Quite simply, it’s because no declaration of war was ever legally made. This is key to understanding America’s disposition…

– No declaration of war means there are no official prisoners of war.

– No declaration of war means the Geneva conventions do not apply.

– No declaration of war means that U.S. soldiers can do whatever they please with no repercussions, since the convention that places responsibility for our soldier’s actions onto the state do not apply.

– No declaration of war means that we are occupying another country or “state” against Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, which states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States …To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

The term “enemy combatants” has replaced the terms “prisoner of war” and “civilians”.

Proof of this fact – that no war has been declared in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc… can be found in the following, which aired on CSPAN in October 2002:

During the October 2nd  and 3rd, 2002 House International Relations Committee hearing on the Iraq resolution, Ron Paul introduced an amendment which actually would have simply and officially declared war against Iraq. The following is that simple amendment, which would have put the United States legally and constitutionally at war and, more importantly, subject to Geneva Convention guarantees and other war crimes documents:

AMENDMENT TO H. J. RES. Ll

To be titled: “Joint Resolution declaring a state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

– Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: ‘‘That pursuant to article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”

Mr. Paul also stated earlier of the resolution, as it existed without his amendment:

“We are giving the President the authority to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. In other words, we are transferring the power to declare war to the President. He can declare the war and fight the war when he pleases. And that is number one. Number two, equal to number one; (the president will) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In this bill that we are working on, they mention United Nations 32 times — I am sorry, 25 times. They never mention article 1, section 8, once.”

“…No matter what you call it, we are talking about a resolution that permits the President to wage war.” – Ron Paul

The committee put Rep. Paul’s amendment to rest (into the trash) with no dissenting votes, and on the afternoon of 10/03/02, the House International Relations Committee passed this resolution, which gave the president (Bush) the power to send our armies into Iraq without a formal declaration of war by congress, without consideration of the unconstitutional act of preemptively attacking a state or country which poses no imminent threat to the United States according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and without the international constraints of the Geneva Convention or any war crimes legislation to restrain our troops from committing heinous acts of torture and violence against innocent woman and children, civilians, Iraqi resistance to foreign invaders, dogs, cats, livestock, or any other living thing in Iraq while “just following orders”.

And now, President Obama has sent troops illegally and unconstitutionally to Pakistan, without an official Congressional declaration of war. He has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and replaced them with even more private security “peace-keepers” like Blackwater (who changed its name to Xe due to such horrible publicity and war crimes charges). And he is about to make the mistake of “preemptively” invading and attempting to occupy Iran, which would be a fatal error in foreign relations considering Iran’s alliance and friendship with both China and Russia.

But then, Obama’s mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski has been after a conflict with Russia since his post as National Security Advisor in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

-Brzezinski advised Carter in 1978 to engage the People’s Republic of China and traveled to Beijing to lay the groundwork for the normalization of relations between the two countries. This also resulted in the severing of ties with the United States’ longtime anti-Communist ally the Republic of China. Also in 1978, Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyła was elected Pope John Paul II—an event which the Soviets believed Brzezinski orchestrated.

In 1979 Brzezinski saw the overthrow of US ally the Shah of Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Iranian Revolution precipitated the Iran hostage crisis, which would last for the rest of Carter’s presidency. Brzezinski anticipated – indeed some some have claimed he even engineered [Matthew Carr, The Infernal Machine: A History of Terrorism from Alexander II to Al-Qaeda, chapter 10.] the Soviet invasion, and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the PRC, he created a strategy to undermine the Soviet presence. – [Wikipedia: Zbigniew Brzezinski]

Brzezinski has had his hands in almost all American conflicts and foreign relations, from Red China to Iran Contra to Russia to Afghanistan to Vietnam. In 1981 Brzezinski revealed that he encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. This was part of a wider policy of forcing the Vietnamese out of Cambodia by funding anti-Vietnamese guerrilla groups that the U.S. helped create. [America Abroad – TIME Magazine]

Understanding that Obama is a student of and was mentored by Zbigniew Brzezinski is imperative to understanding the mentality and intentions of our president and his multitude of not-elected, appointed cabinet members. From Obama’s Chief of Staff – duel Israeli citizen Raum Emanuel, to foreign born Special Adviser Henry Kissinger, these elitist appointees rule our elected officials.

To further decry the importance of the illegality and unconstitutionality of the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan… a memo was given by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, dated January 25, 2002, urging President George Bush to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva Convention. In the memo, the corrupted White House lawyer referenced the 1996 law passed by Congress known as the “War Crimes Act”, which banned any American from committing war crimes – defined in part as “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention. The memo warns that the law applies to “U.S.  officials” and that punishments for violators “include the death penalty.” (NewsWeek, May 17, 2004)

Shortly after Gonzales’ memo came out, Secretary Powell wrote a dissenting memo arguing that Alberto Gonzales’ attempt to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention undermines more than a century of U.S. policy and practice. In that memo, he states:

“It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. … It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops. … We will be challenged in international forums (UN Commission on Human Rights; World Court; etc.).”

On March 19, 2003, despite these warnings by Powell and others, Bush (not Congress) declared a preemptive war in Iraq.

This one act alone – especially since it was proven that no “weapons of mass destruction” were anywhere near Iraq, nor that Iraq had the capability to produce such weapons, nor that Iraq or Sadam Huesain had anything to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 and the attack on the pentagon – and since Iraq posed no “imminent threat” to the United States, constitutes a “grave breach” of the Geneva Convention, which states:

“Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Fall 1990)

The U.S. Military Code specifies that it is a crime to violate the Geneva convention:

“Whoever, … commits a war crime, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, … and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … Definition: As used in this section the term ‘war crime’ means … a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 [or acts] prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907 … ” (Section 2441: U.S. Military Code on War Crimes)

Also, after WWII in 1945, the United States led the formation of the “Nuremberg Principles” which formed the United Nations Charter. This charter binds every country in the world. It defines as a crime:

“Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

For a chronological account of the actions taken by the U.S. Military under the leadership of George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief which lead to multiple violations of the Geneva convention and U.S. Military Code, please go here: http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/pages/torture.html

I could go on and on with countless violations of the Geneva Conventions, war crimes, Nuremburg principles, etc… but what would be the point? We are not at war.

This one little fact that has been overlooked and not reported by the media is the key to ushering in peace. Acknowledging it would mean the end of these illegal and unconstitutional occupations of innocent countries, and the unwarranted murder and impoverishing of whole populations. It would mean that torture, outrageous POW camps like Guantanamo Bay, and any other war crimes committed by this administration, our troops and Blackwater thugs overseas, and crimes against Americans themselves would be treated as such and punishable by the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes treatises.

The new president continues to abuse the jargon of the previous administration, calling for a “war on terror”. This is ridiculous, and is about as winnable as a war on mosquitoes. This war on terror can best be described as a never ending, un-winnable war, which will continue to allow the United States and the United Nations to invade and terrorize any country, any home, and even any American who challenges the corporate fascist control of America and abroad.

While we as mindless sheep continue to refer to the events in the middle east as:

the “war in Iraq

thewar in Afghanistan”

the new “war in Pakistan

and the impending “war with Iran” – which will no doubt lead to something akin to awar with the world”…

These politicians and appointed officials are making fortunes for their lobbyists and elitist co-conspirators though the corporations they own, chair, direct, advise, and profit from by awarding no-bid contracts to them in these occupied countries, but only after our military destroys them to create the need for reconstruction.

It is time for the American people to wake up and take responsibility for the war crimes and human rights violations that our government is perpetrating against the people, the families, and the innocents of the Middle-East. This will not stop until they have taken over, through the United Nations, all of the nation-states, not excluding our own. We, as responsible citizens can no longer afford to ignore these crimes. For the only other way that this will stop, is for the citizenry to stand up and say, “NO MORE KILLING”

We must do something now… for the hour is late, and every innocent death is on all of our hands. And they get bloodier by the hour.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Sunday, October 11, 2009

Czars: Unconstitutional, Unelected, Unofficial, And Unwanted!


There has been a lot of talk about the appointing of and use of Czars in the current Obama administration. Quite frankly, I had no idea what the connotation of this word was, nor what the historical power of that title really meant throughout history and today.

And so, being the ever-curious soul that I am, I did a bit of research.

I’d like to share that with you now:

(Emphasis mine throughout!)

What is a Czar?

According to the 1984 Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition – the term Czar is defined as:

Czar:

  1. An emperor: title of any of the former emperors of Russia, and at various times, the sovereigns of other Slavic nations.
  2. Any person having great or unlimited power over others; autocrat

Czarism:

  1. The Russian government under the Czars.
  2. Absolute rule; despotism

Hmmm… I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound very good to me. It certainly doesn’t sound like a Democracy or a Republic, where leaders are voted upon before entering office. And I refuse to believe that America has fallen so far as to be so ignorant of the past that their jaws don’t drop at the mere mention of the appointment of multiple “Czars” into their government.

Since this was a hard cover traditional dictionary from 1984 (a fitting year for this information, if you ask me) I thought this might be a biased, older, or out of date description of the word used to describe the people who are now advising our president.

So, I checked the Internet.

Here’s what I found there…

I went to Wikipedia, a site I would never use as a source of accurate information, but one none the less that many people do, despite it’s ability to be changed by even the most moronic of its users. But I figure that at least this is the going public opinion of what a Czar might be. Never the less, after some fact-checking… here’s what it said:

Tzar or Czar (Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian): Term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. The first ruler to adopt the title tsar was Simeon I of Bulgaria.

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

“Tsar” was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

  • Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946
  • Serbia in 1346–1371
  • Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (replaced in 1721 by imperator, but remained in common usage until 1917).

Under the heading “Metaphorical Uses” Wiki-Pedia states:

Like many lofty titles, e.g. Mogul, Tsar or Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority, in English since 1866 (referring to U.S. President Andrew Johnson), with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style, fitting since “Autocrat” was an official title of the Russian Emperor (informally referred to as ‘the Tsar’). Similarly, Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed was called “Czar Reed” for his dictatorial control of the House of Representatives in the 1880s and 1890s.

In the United States the title “czar” is a slang term for certain high-level civil servants, such as the “drug czar” for the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, “terrorism czar” for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, “cybersecurity czar” for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and “war czar” to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, a czar refers to a sub-cabinet level advisor within the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Under the political term explanation page, WikiPedia states the following:

Rationale:

Advantages cited for the creation of czar type posts are the ability to go outside of formal channels and find creative solutions for ad hoc problems, the ability to involve a lot of government players in big issue decision-making, and the ability to get a huge bureaucracy moving in the right direction. Problems can occur with getting all the parties to work together and with managing competing power centers.

One explanation for use of the term is that while the American public rebels at terms like “king” and “dictator”, associating them with King George III or fascist figures of World War II, the term “czar” is foreign, distant, and exotic enough to be acceptable. And the fact that czar positions are often created in times of perceived public crisis makes the public eager to see a strong figure making hard decisions that the existing political structure is unable to do.[6] Another is that Americans of the era adopted exotic Asian words to denote those with great, and perhaps unchecked, power, with “mogul” and “tycoon” being other instances.

The increase in czar positions over time may be because as the size and role of the federal government has grown, so too has the difficulty of coordinating policy across multiple organizational jurisdictions. Indeed, czar positions sometimes become important enough that they become permanent executive offices, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy or the United States Trade Representative.

Wow! So how many Czars do we have now?

Well, buckle your seatbelts… for in July of 2009, The Daily Citizen reported that:

“It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that: Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.


“Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

“… Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

(Source: The Daily Citizen –  http://www.northwestgeorgia.com/opinion/local_story_189163602.html?keyword=topstory)

Steve Forbes is quoted while speaking about Czars:

“It underscores the inefficiency of government that you keep … having people, hoping that maybe they will get something done that the massive government bureaucracy cannot.”

(Source: “Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama ‘Czars'”. Fox News. July 13, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/questions-raised-influence-obama-czars/)

So who is paying these “Czars” salaries?

Why the taxpayers of course!

How much power do these Czars actually have?

Good question… As stated by the Daily Citizen above:

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

So much apparent power do these Czars have, that Rep. Jack Kingston [Republican-GA] introduced a bill – H.R. 3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 – on July 15, 2009. Apparently this bill is so important to the members of the House of Representatives that it currently has 116 co-sponsors, all of them Republican. The one co-sponsor that was a Democrat was withdrawn at some point. When the whole of the Republican Party, including my personal hero Ron Paul supports a bill, which would reign in the Democratic President and party, one should not take such legislation lightly. The same would be true in opposite party circumstances. See the contents of the bill here:

(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3226)

The main concern here, one that is generally lost on the American people, is that these Czars are appointed without Congressional or Senate approval by one person: the President Of The United States. This alone should be enough to warrant extreme caution about the man who is for all intents and purposes in charge of our country (or more correctly: the man who signs the legislation and corrupt laws in the stead of lobbyists and wealthy elite bankers and corporations who funded his campaign and are incrementally taking control of our country). For the appointment of these men and women, of whom many have considerably tarnished and controversial political, economic, populist, and global oriented views, is a violation of the governmental and constitutional values we once held so dear to our hearts.

President Obama continues to keep in place and head the advice of such Czars as Paul Holdren – the “science czar” who co-wrote the book Ecoscience – “which proposed and supported such ideals as “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.” (infowars.com). Strangely, these ideals were not brought to light in Holdren’s Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, this begs the assumption that the Senate is equally complicate in the appointment and support of these Czars, whether they are approved or not.

In conclusion, Obama appears to be out of control! While the gullible masses who support him are still admonishing him as the Savior of America, his empty promises of “hope and change” continue to ring – like a false Liberty Bell, whose crack is ever-widening and is about to break in half, along with this now condemned and nearly broken country. These Czars are the specters of false prophets; ghouls who resemble the character portrayal of Worm-tongue from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And I for one am sickened by the ill-boded direction our electorate has taken towards the support of these tyrannical and unconstitutional, unelected rulers.

Quite frankly, the words of a fictional but oh so relevant news anchor perhaps best suit the stance we should all be taking towards the president and these unelected psychopaths who advise him…

I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
October 5, 2009

Will Independence Day Have A Sequel? How Long Can America Last Without One?


The basic premise of the 1st amendment is the predicate of free speech. It is the freedom of religious speech. It is the freedom of speaking in groups and in public forums. And most importantly, it is the freedom of dissenting speech considering government tyranny.

There is only one thing given to us – as we are referred to in the constitution as “We The People” – to ensure that these 1st amendment rights are not trampled upon. That wondrous and glorious thing is the 2nd amendment.

This “Bill of Rights” should be read as a list, in order of importance from 1 to 10.

If the 1st amendment fails – see the 2nd amendment.

If the 2nd amendment fails – there is no need to read any further, for they to will then soon cease to exist if they haven’t already. This is how vital the 2nd amendment truly is to the health and freedom of this republic and for its free people.

The 2nd amendment gives us (We The People) the power to own firearms, for the very purpose of quelling a foreign or domestic threat. This not only includes, but was intended to mean the very government of the United States, in the extraordinary state of affairs in which the sovereignty of America and it’s individual states, the freedom of it’s people from dictatorial and governmental tyranny, the use of a standing army is imposed on its citizens, unfair and unapportioned taxes, or if a foreign country, group or body (like the United Nations) assumes control over any part of its independence from such things.

At the time of the Constitutions writing America’s threat was England’s Monarchy. “We the People” fought with their blood, sweat and tears to detach themselves from England’s rule and “Taxation without Representation” and win its independence from the rule of a far away king or queen.

Today, even as most high officials of the U.S government and all previous presidents, including Obama, have bowed before the Queen and been honored or knighted (a wholly illegal and unconstitutional act which calls for their immediate impeachment form office and expulsion from the country, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution), these traitors are passing legislation to take away our 1st Amendment, while passing legislation which will retract our defense against this treachery, the 2nd Amendment. In fact the very Bill of Rights, which protects us all from these foreign and domestic threats, has almost been completely legislated away by these honorary knights and nobles of the crown of England. It has been a long, incremental process with many stages – and the final stage is upon us. Demonstrators are being harassed and arrested, and guns and bullets are being confiscated. Both of these events mark the end of America as we know it, and are ushering in the police state no one seems to want to talk out loud about.

I write this even as four of my neighbors within three blocks have recently lost their properties to eminent domain; properties which had been in their families for over 100 years.

So what gives these presidents, legislators, and high class citizens of the United States the right to ignore the constitution of the United States of America and become honorary nobels and knights to the crown of Great Britain without being disbarred, impeached, and thrown out of America on their perspective butts by We the People?

I wish I knew.

And perhaps it’s time we do so.

The United States Senate has kept a journal of its proceedings since its inaugural session, as was conditioned by Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states:

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

The Journal itself is essentially the minutes of each legislative session. It states most official matters considered by the Senate, their votes, and other actions taken.

Here is an excerpt from the “Journal Of The Senate” from 1810 referring to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution (See full page below):

If any citizen of the United States shall except, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility, or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, pension, office, or emolument, of any kind whatsoever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

—————————————————————————–

(Page #503 from senate in 1810)
journal senate

Notice that legislation passed 26 to 1 in favor of the new law.

Link –> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=004/llsj004.db&recNum=493&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A%40field%28DOCID%2B%40lit%28sj004446%29%29%230040392&linkText=1

—————————————————————————–

There are many who would argue against this amendment, saying that it is only an honorary title of nobility, and that the recipients only bow from the neck, and not from the waist, or that a sword is not used, or that it doesn’t really mean anything.

So I must ask: If it doesn’t mean anything… why do it. Why cause the controversy over absolutely nothing? Why mock our most honorable national document we so cherish and go against your oath to protect and follow it? And why not publicly proclaim your allegiance to the United States and denounce publically any loyalty or ties to crown?

Sound ridiculous? Think I’m being an alarmist? Think I’m going overboard?

Well then, let’s put this into terms we can all relate to…

Let’s say you’re a player or the coach for a basketball team in a league of basketball teams. You naturally expect a fair game from the other team (countries). And you expect the referee (government) to be impartial and fair in his judgments and penalties, for he is present to ensure that these rules be followed and enforced, and even to asses penalties for violations of these rules. However, before the game begins you find out that the referee was accepted as an honorary member of the other team in a secret ceremony, and held in the highest regards by that team, given gifts by that team, and that in doing so, pled his honorary, undying allegiance to that team. Would you continue to allow that referee to arbitrate your match, knowing his allegience was biased against your team, or would you have that referee excused in lieu of an impartial and noncommittal one? In fact, would you not go out of your way to ensure that this referee never served over another game again by kicking him out of the league, to spare other teams the same unfair treatment?

If I am but an honorary member of a known anti-American terrorist group, may I live freely in America without your fear of my bombing your car, or would you take acception to my being your neighbor?

If I then kill or assassinate someone honorably, do I assume innocence from the law and escape punishment?

.

.

*** The following is a partial list of men and women who have accepted these honors of knighthood from the queen, some while serving in office, and some still serving:

George Herbert Walker Bush – (12/20/93) – As he kneeled before the queen in a ceremony of allegence, he was knighted by the Queen of England as a “Knight Grand Cross with the most honorable Order of the Bath”

Ronald Reagan – Knighted “Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth

General Colin Powell – (1993) – Appointed “Knights Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth


General Norman Schwarzkop
f – (1993) – Appointed “Knights Commander of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth


Alan Greenspan
(former Federal Reserve Chief) – (08/06/02) – Knighted “Knight Commander of the British Empire” (KBE) at a time when Mr. Greenspan was often referred to as “the second most powerful man in the world.”

*** Also interesting to note: the title of “Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” is an honor that dates back to 1917, around the same time the Federal Reserve gained power over the United States and its money system, which has put us all in unrecoverable debt and enacted the Federal income tax which was never approved, but is still illegally enforced. Mr. Greenspan was the fourth head of that corrupt private international bank with power not under the government, but over it.

Rudy Guiliani – (2002) – “Knight Commander of the British Empire” (KBE)


Charleton Heston
– (03/16/97) – Commander, Order of Arts and Letters (France). The French Order of Arts and Letters is France’s highest civilian honor for those in the performing arts.

Note: The NRA is bunk!


Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr.
(retired) – 03/05/97) – Appointed by Queen Elizabeth II as an “Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” (Military Division) (KBE)

Roy Disney and Mrs. Disney – (01/04/98) – “Knight, Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great”

Bob and Delores Hope – (01/04/98) – “Knight, Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great” – Bob Hope was actually born in England, but was a U.S. citizen.

Caspar Weinberger – (former U.S. Secretary of Defense) – appointed “Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” by H.M. Queen Elizabeth


Tom Foley
(Former Speaker of the U.S. House) – (03/19/95) – Member: “Order of the British Empire” – Foley also holds the French “Legion of Honor” and the German “Order of Merit”

Bill Gates – 03/02/05 – awarded “Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire”

→ Others granted knighthood and nobility by the Queen of England:

– J Edgar Hoover (first director of the FBI, who formalized the CoIntelPro (illegal spying)
– Henry Kissinger (German eugenic political advisor to many presidents including Obama)
– Steven Spielberg (writer/director/producer of film – propaganda master)
– Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (beloved actor and highly decorated navel officer)
– Billy Graham (Religious Evangelist)
– General Wesley Clark (NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe)
– Andre Previn (composer/maestro)

– And hundreds of other influential people that shape the laws and opinions of America…

†———————————-†———————————-†

The Tytler Cycle

†———————————-†———————————-†

The Scottish historian Alexander Tytler composed the following theory:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”


Consider now that the following empires all lasted just a bit over 200 years:

Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The United States (1790-2009 A.D.): 219 years and counting.

***List compiled by Chuck Baldwin – Constitutional Party presidential candidate in 2008 that most voters never even knew was on the ballot untill election day, due to a media blackout on “alternative” and “third party” candidates.

•    Now consider that the United States has been around – since winning it’s war for independence and becoming a nation – for 219 years.

•    Or depending on your historical perspective, since 1776 – the unofficial humble beginnings of our country through the Declaration of Independence – for 233 years (Coincidentally the exact years of the Roman Republic listed above).

So, my fellow Americans… at what point do we call foul?

Who will stand up before we fall down… the next domino in a continuously falling line of banker destroyed civilizations?

Who will kick these traitors out of office and out of the country before they are the ruin of us?
.
.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

October 2, 2009

The Protection Of The Sanctity Of Marriage Act


“The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” is a proposal for a new bill to be voted on as a proposition for future elections in California.

Its basic clause is that divorce be banned from the law books and become illegal. This is to apply to all marriage contracts that are currently legal in California, as well as to all future marriage contracts. There will be a four month grace period before this law takes effect in order to allow for current divorce proceedings to be completed, as well as to allow for people currently in said contracts to opt out of these marriages (to be titled: The Opt-Out Period). This grace period will allow for divorce proceedings until this to-be-determined effective date. However, all divorce cases must be settled in court by this date or: they will become invalid, the marriage contract will remain intact, and the contractually bound “husband and wife” will continue to be happily married until the stated condition of “death” is met by one or more of the married parties in question. This act will also make out-of-state divorces non-recognizable in California, unless the original marriage contract was made in another state. The citizenry of the great state of California should not and will no longer tolerate the “Las Vegas” divorce.

We sincerely hope that this bill will inspire other states in the union to ratify similar laws in order to protect all of our children, and make the act of marriage wholesome once more. We believe that marriage is an act of love, and that love can only be guided through the heart when accompanied through state contract. Marriage is a contractual pledge of eternal love, which cannot and should not be allowed to be relinquished by the state. It is not a choice: It is forever.

Who would support this bill?

  • A. The church – How can the church possibly condone divorce? Marriage is a holy religious tradition with deep roots in the church itself. The ceremony is wrought with scripture and references to God of how the commitment is a holy and sanctimonious bond. For the church to come out in opposition of this act would essentially amount to blasphemy.
  • B. Gay men and women – Simply said, if the act of marriage is so extremely sanctimonious that it was made to exclude a group which is barely even referred to in the bible, then it should be protected against such subservient and deviant laws such as divorce and alimony. Simply put: homosexual couples cannot be married, and so heterosexual couples cannot be divorced. One must ask which if any minority group would fail to see this as a fair and equitable trade-off for the blatant persecution of their individual and group rights?
  • C. Mothers and children – This is really a bill for the children. It would protect and enforce the family structure, making it illegal for the father to leave the mother, therefore permanently preserving the family unit. After all, the vow says “Till death do us part”. No longer will children have to be torn between parents in psychologically damaging custody battles. Children should above all be protected from the horrible ordeal of divorce. Abusive spouses will of course be given the benefit of the doubt. We believe that a good spanking builds character. And a beating is good for the soul. After all, bruises heal eventually… don’t they?
  • D. Fathers – In an unjust court system the father always seems to get stuck with the child support, even if he wants the kids for himself. But he never seems to get custody of the kids. This will no longer be an issue – there will be no more drawn out custody battles. Also since no legal divorce would be allowed, no longer will men be treated as money machines, paying unfairly half of their estate to a woman who really only married him for that money in the first place. Gold-diggers will be a thing of the past. Pre-nuptials will no longer be needed. It’s wonderful, really!
  • E. Immigration – The easiest way for an immigrant to gain citizenship in this country is to get married to an American. Typically, there is a lot of money involved, usually given to the legal citizen. And more often than not there is a divorce proceeding once the minimum period of time by law for that marriage is reached in order to retain citizenship or green card status. “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would make Americans think twice about unlawfully marrying for money or citizenship, as the commitment would be binding for the rest of their lives. This would also mean they were responsible for that aliens well being and medical expenses for ever and ever and ever. This might slow or even stop what is actually considered illegal immigration into this country; meaning that getting married solely for the act of obtaining citizenship, and not out of love, is a crime.
  • F. The courts – This bill will potentially eliminate thousands of alimony and divorce cases each and every year, and would clear the courts and give them more time for other important litigation, while saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Just think of all the pending murder, theft, and other important cases that would actually have a speedy trial granted by the courts, as is supposed to be afforded according to the U.S. Constitution. Courts are no place for children. Parents, no matter how overbearing and abusive should certainly have custody of their children no matter what the circumstances.
  • G. Married and single people (everyone) – Essentially, it would be hypocritical for anyone in this country to vote no on this bill. Marriage is a contract which should not be nullified or destroyed simply because two people disagree about a few things or a little blood is spilled. It is a binding contract, meaning two people are bound in love whether they like it or not. They signed a contract! It’s time we bring civics back into this country. Imagine what Mrs. Smith would think of her husband if Mr. Smith voted against this bill… Would that mean that he wants the option of divorce to be on the table? Would it mean he didn’t love her anymore, or planned not to in the future? Could he be thinking of reneging on his part of the contract? You see… there is just no need for a divorce option. The aforementioned four-month grace period would all but take care of any reluctant marriages that exist today. And single (unmarried) people certainly wouldn’t be getting married if they weren’t in love, knowing that divorce is not an option anymore. So divorce would obviously not be needed in the future either.

Who would rightfully oppose this bill?

  • A. Divorce Lawyers.
  • B. Non-U.S. Citizens without voting rights.
  • C. Gold-diggers.
  • D. Con artists.

And so in conclusion, the passing of “The Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage Act” would ensure marriage to be a life-long commitment as it was always meant to be. Monetarily, we’ve shown that the savings would be substantial to the government, the judicial system, and the taxpayers, while only displacing an extremely small minority in the law profession, with the possibility of hurting or canceling some daytime television court shows. The pros far outweigh any cons. Also, we believe that the happiness that mandatory contractual marriage would bring to spouses and their children is incalculable. Happiness by rule of law is surely preferable to the auto determination of individuals being allowed the choice or right to shatter the holy, binding contract of marriage for reasons unworthy of such a separation.

We hope that you will see it in your hearts to make this idea come to fruition, bringing on its tails the love and happiness associated with mandatorily binding marriage. To any who might oppose this bill, we can only assume that your deviance must be far too ingrained into your psyche to possibly be qualified for a state granted marriage license in the first place. We believe that makes you un-American, and that the no-fly and terrorist watch lists should include people like you. We believe that you are purposely looking for love in all the wrong places, and we will not stand for the types of malicious anti-marriage activities listed here: dating, kissing, hand-holding in public, scary movies and chick-flicks, singles bars, dance halls, internet chatting, hay rides, and just plain unlicensed lollygagging.

May we all find it in our hearts to be spouses and parents. Thank you for your support.

.

Insincerely,

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
President/founder: Marriage Ain’t for Homos/Divorce Ain’t for Straights Foundation.

.

((For those who think less than others… this is sarcasm.))