here is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the cause of happening.” —Dorothy Thompson
There is absolutely no need for military conquest. Changing human liberty to fascism is done gradually… even if it takes 100 years. Here’s how:
■Change the monetary system to fiat, i.e., paper money.
■Transfer wealth with fiat to the State via inflation and depreciation of the currency. Have a graduated income tax.
■Create wars.
■Keep race stirred up with class warfare.
■Destroy the family—put the wife to work.
■Promote homosexuality. Glorify it.
■Create government schools under the name of free public education. Dumb the people down so they can’t think.
■Unisex and/or transgender.
■Promote “brotherly love”—altruism.
■Denigrate women.
■Glorify sex, promote perversion.
■Hold and maintain all the historic freedom-sounding names like constitution, privacy rights, private property, American flag, voting rights, democracy, elected representatives, free press, etc.
■Use very elite and refined propaganda to sway the public on all issues.
■Keep the public ignorant on gold (real money). Erase it from memory.
■Gun control through gradualism. Cultivate the public to fear guns by promoting the idea that guns are dangerous. Inflate gun accidents and gun incidents on nationwide media. Sensationalize the negative.
■Keep the trusted gang in power no matter who is president.
■Manipulate government statistics.
■Promote peace and manufacture arms for export. Be the world’s number one arms manufacturer.
■Harass people with “foreign bank accounts” while having the largest tax haven in the world with and through U.S. banks within the U.S.
■Enslave the world with fiat called euphemistically a reserve currency. Don’t allow the gold standard anywhere in the world.
■Call it private property but have perpetual and increasing property taxes.
■Confuse the terms liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, fascist, democrat, republican.
One Of The Greatest Deceptions
Persuade the public that there is a “national debt” and “deficit spending.” This ruse implies legitimate accounting. The public must not know and must never know that a fiat system implies default from its inception. How, my friends, can there be debt when everybody knows that fiat is created to infinity at no cost?
Same Principle
The bank “loans” you “borrowed” money on your home and calls it your debt, but is it? The bank just created the fiat. It cost the bank nothing, but the bank calls it your debt or your mortgage and you believe that you have debt. The bank invests in you without risk. If you are unable to pay your mortgage the bank forecloses. It has taken from you what is yours under the guise of you having defaulted on the loan without putting a dime of its own money at risk. Is this economic slavery? This is our system.
Finally, Purposefully Keep The Populace Unhealthy
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an arm of the Federal government, has long sought to deny you the information you need to stay healthy and control what you eat.
In 2006, the FDA declared war on cherry producers and threatened them with legal action over claims that the antioxidants and anthocyanins in cherries provided healthful benefits. This despite the fact that another arm of the government, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), had produced studies showing cherries contained antioxidants and anthocyanins, and there is medical proof they are beneficial in protecting against the onset of cancer, as pain relievers and to help ease the symptoms of gout and arthritis.
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Thank you Lee for forwarding this info to me
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Thanks Obama
I have stood down trying to let the President elect work this nations problems out.But he seems to not worry about it.He has sunk his press in to the Amerikan people to device them. We have a Socialist front on its way to national health care,and a speaker of the house that is going to push it.there is a treaty being ready to be signed buy the U.S. to follow world wide gun laws.The Amerikan Constitution is now nothing more then a page that is going to be torn away from American history.We are a nation that was forged in freedom now we are nation that is scared to defend are freedoms.
I have served my country boldly and with pride.But now for the first time in my life iam ashamed to say iam an American .We where a nation of freedom a country that held its grounds when we had our backs to the corner, a NATION that fought.Now with the press telling us every move we should make we are sheep.Do not be scared. are for fathers where not.The Red White and Blue has taken a big noise dive in to fear ... fear of being a nation ,fear of being what was a Nation that believed in freedom
I have served my country boldly and with pride.But now for the first time in my life iam ashamed to say iam an American .We where a nation of freedom a country that held its grounds when we had our backs to the corner, a NATION that fought.Now with the press telling us every move we should make we are sheep.Do not be scared. are for fathers where not.The Red White and Blue has taken a big noise dive in to fear ... fear of being a nation ,fear of being what was a Nation that believed in freedom
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Question Amerika
1776 we started out as a free nation,2009 we have become are worst enemy .The press led a war against a President that defended are nation against islamic attacks and spoke out against rouge nations. Now we have a coward leading are nation that is scared of the people that put him in to office.This man would rather apologize for are sovereignty then defend it.He apologizes for are freedoms that where defended in blood buy are military and granted to ALL buy are constitution .Amerika has laid down as another nation of sheep,Stalin did it, Hitler did it and now Mr.Obama,is leading us in to that direction.I know most of Amerika is to young to remember the Rev.Jim Jones and "Jones Town" or what was done buy Mr.Castro in Cuba. Our freedom of speech is in great jeopardy along with are right to bear arms,.Both of these given rights that are necessary for a free nation to remain free.We have people now making statements that if you appose the president you are a racist,Well america, if you steep in to the political ring you are a target for scrutiny ,and race is not the issue its your job performance.This currant political environment is buy far the worst of times that this country has seen since the American "Civil War".The age and race group that put Mr.Obama in to office was white Americans form 18 to 35 years of age,but now its a race issue against him, if you speak out against him.Well its not its speaking out against the people that want to wadl "The Constitution" up in to a ball and throw it away or the people that think it is a living breathing document.We are all Americans,we are NOT European Americans ,African Americans or Spanish Americans we are AMERICANS red white and blue, mutts of the world that did not have a chance divided. But together we are a Nation and not a "CHANGE"
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama Putting BOOT down on internet
Obama Plans Internet Grab: FCC to Embrace 'Net Neutrality'
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:16 PM
By: John O. Edwards Article Font Size
Since the Internet took root as a mass communications phenomenon in the mid 1990s, a quiet war has raged in Washington over the extent to which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would regulate the new medium.
Until, now the Internet has been largely self-regulated, and the FCC has taken a hands-off approach.
But that could change dramatically soon if the Obama administration has its way.
During the weekend, press reports revealed a stunning development: The Obama administration will announce Monday that the FCC would propose new rules to embrace what it calls "Net Neutrality."
Obama's new Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will use a speech to the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, to announce the FCC proposals, according to those reports.
On the face of it, Net Neutrality appears to be a popular and fair proposal.
Genachowski will "propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks," according to the Associated Press.
The FCC rules "would bar Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp. or AT&T Inc., from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks," according to the AP.
But critics contend that the proposals are nothing more than a backdoor way for the FCC to tighten federal control over the Internet by beginning with the regulation of Internet service providers.
The battle lines over Net Neutrality have formed along partisan and ideological lines, with some exceptions.
During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would embrace Net Neutrality — a cause championed by Google and other Silicon Valley companies that don't want large Internet service providers denying or controlling their access to Internet users.
But Republicans have largely opposed Net Neutrality, suggesting self regulation has worked well.
The previous FCC chairman, Bush appointee Kevin Martin opposed Net Neutrality. He suggested it was not needed.
Conservatives see Net Neutrality as a power grab that will benefit big Internet players such as Amazon and Google while stifling smaller competitors.
The libertarian CATO Institute, in a 2004 policy analysis concluded: "The regulatory regime envisioned by Net Neutrality mandates would also open the door to a great deal of potential 'gaming' of the regulatory system and allow firms to use the regulatory system to hobble competitors. Worse yet, it would encourage more FCC regulation of the Internet and broadband markets in general."
Democrats in Congress have pushed for such controls in the past without success. In 2006 House Democrats offered an amendment to make Net Neutrality law, but the motion failed.
At the time Republicans warned of efforts to control the Internet.
"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said during the 2006 House debate over the issue. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it . . . I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Eventually this "society" of ours will simply collapse. When a civilization starts to protect their stupid and insane, and allow them to breed, or rise to power, then natural selection ceases. No more survival of the fittest. It becomes survival of the whatever. Everyone is special just because you are here. We have begun this, with the corruption of our child rearing methods and the outlawing of corporal punishment. Supposedly aimed at stopping abuse, this philosophy has actually spurned an entire generation of lazy, unaware weirdos, with absolutely no discipline. If we, as a specie and a country, do not wake up and pull our collective heads out of our asses, these trends will continue, and as our future generations become more and more dependant on video games and other such trifles of technology, and grow farther and farther from the real truths of existence, eventually they will all forget about true freedom, and the pain and blood spilled to gain that freedom, as long as they are kept comfortable and entertained.
--Andrew J. Hradsky
--Andrew J. Hradsky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
