Disabled Vietnam vet, 70, shot by police as he reached for his cane in traffic stop | Mail Online

Disabled Vietnam vet, 70, shot by police as he reached for his cane in traffic stop | Mail Online.

The Powers that be have indoctrinated these “policeman” to shoot first, think later, instead of THINK FIRST before you shoot. This is yet ANOTHER prime example of what these younger generations of “Police” are being trained to do and the TARGETS “New Boogie Man”have been well outlined by the DHS. This continued assault against NON-Combative Targets is getting totally OUTRAGEOUS and out of control! :-/

Per UN, 2010: Year of Biodiversity? Is “ALL Human Activity causing Diversity of Life on Earth to be lost’?

WE are being told that, “Biodiversity is threatened by the sum of all human activities. It is useful to group threats into the categories of over-hunting, habitat destruction, invasion of non-native species, domino effects, pollution, and climate change.”

  • “Habitat loss presents the single greatest threat to world biodiversity, and the magnitude of this threat can be approximated from species-area curves and rates of habitat loss. The spread of non-native species threatens many local species with extinction, and pushes the world’s biota toward a more homogeneous and widely distributed sub-set of survivors. Climate change threatens to force species and ecosystems to migrate toward higher latitudes, with no guarantee of suitable habitat or access routes. These three factors thus are of special concern.”

Okay, I agree to an extent of what The Powers That Be are saying, BUT, the solution is to rein in the WEALTHY  TOP Corporations and STOP THEM from polluting our environment, Stop out-sourcing of American Jobs without raising the import fees, STOP THEM from creating all these NEW strains of VIRUSES, STOP THEM from bypassing laws and regulations that WE,  the ‘Little People”,  have to OBEY  or else pay the price. That would take care of the bulk of the problems, the rest would soon fall in place IMO.

And as Jim commented below, the best solution would be to remove the USA from any and ALL FINANCIAL dealings with the UN and it’s splinter groups,  before they figure out a way to totally destroy what is left of our Constitutional Rights!


UN Designates 2010 International Year of Biodiversity

Malaysia Sun
Saturday 2nd January, 2010

In a bid to curb the unprecedented loss of the world’s species due to human activity, at a rate some experts put at 1,000 times the natural progression, the United Nations is marking 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity, with a slew of events highlighting the vital role the phenomenon plays in maintaining the life support system on Planet Earth.

“Humans are part of nature’s rich diversity and have the power to protect or destroy it,” the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which is hosted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said in summarizing the Year’s main message, with its focus on raising awareness to generate public pressure for action by the world’s decision makers.

“Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, is essential to sustaining the living networks and systems that provide us all with health, wealth, food, fuel and the vital services our lives depend on.

“Human activity is causing the diversity of life on Earth to be lost at a greatly accelerated rate.”

These losses are irreversible, impoverish us all and damage the life support systems we rely on every day. But we can prevent them.”

The Convention, which opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, AGENDA 21, entered into force at the end of 1993 and now has 193 Parties, is based on the premise that the world’s diverse ecosystems purify the air and the water that are the basis of life, stabilize and moderate the Earth’s climate, renew soil fertility, cycle nutrients and pollinate plants.

As a former UNEP Executive Director, Klaus Topfer, put it: “If any part of the web suffers breaks down, the future of life on the planet will be at risk.” That is why the UN General Assembly proclaimed 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity.

Although initial celebrations began in November under the slogan Biodiversity is life, biodiversity is our life,” the official launch will take place in Berlin on 11 January. This will be followed on 21 and 22 January by the first major event of the Year, a high-profile meeting at the Paris headquarters of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is expected to bring together heads of state, royalty and their representatives.

A host of other events – meetings, symposia, multi-media exhibitions – will follow throughout the year in venues around world, from Trondheim, Norway, to Delhi, India, from Doha, Qatar, to Cartagena, Colombia, and from Shanghai, China, to Nairobi, Kenya, culminating in a high-level meeting at UN Headquarters in New York at the start of the General Assembly’s 65th annual General Debate in September and an official closing in Kanazawa, Japan, in December.

“A wide variety of environmental goods and services that we take for granted are under threat, with profound and damaging consequences for ecosystems, economies and livelihoods,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in November at the start of the pre-celebrations.

“In this International Year, we must counter the perception that people are disconnected from our natural environment. We must increase understanding of the implications of losing biodiversity. In 2010, I call on every country and each citizen of our planet to engage in a global alliance to protect life on Earth.”

The Montreal-based CBD Secretariat likewise stresses the urgency in raising public awareness of the importance of biodiversity and the consequences of its loss.

“The goal for raising awareness of these issues is to generate public pressure for action by decision makers, and to create the conditions for governments, individuals and other important sectors, to be encouraged to implement the Convention and to engage with other international and national institutions, towards achieving the goals of the Convention.”

The Convention covers all ecosystems, species, and genetic resources, linking traditional conservation efforts to the economic goal of using biological resources sustainably, setting principles for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources, notably for commercial use and covering the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, and addressing technology development and transfer, benefit-sharing and biosafety.

While recognizing that ecosystems, species and genes must be used for the benefit of humans, the Convention stipulates that this must be done in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of diversity.

It offers decision-makers guidance based on the precautionary principle that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat. It acknowledges that substantial investment is required to conserve diversity, but argues that conservation will bring significant environmental, economic and social benefits in return.

Looking at the economic costs of action or inaction, a recent

UN-backed The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study estimated loss of natural capital due to deforestation and degradation at between $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion every year – “a staggering economic cost of taking nature for granted.

“It is estimated that for an annual investment of $45 billion into protected areas alone, we could secure the delivery of ecosystem services worth some $5 trillion a year, it said. When compared to current financial losses on the markets, this is not a big price to pay. Sound ecosystem and biodiversity management, and the inclusion of Natural Capital in governmental and business accounting can start to redress inaction and reduce the cost of future losses.”


Alex Jones on the UN

Savage on the UN


Concepts of Biodiversity

The sequel to that first biodiversity book, naturally titled Biodiversity II (Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997), documents the rapid rise of the term “biodiversity” in importance and influence. But it also traces the study of aspects of biodiversity back as far as Aristotle. To some extent, biodiversity merely offers a new, emotive, term for some older ideas and programs. In fact, “biodiversity” is now used sometimes to mean “life” or “wilderness” or other conservation values. “Biodiversity” also has served on occasion as a catch-all for “conservation” itself.

The scientific literature illustrates how most any conservation activity might use the label “biodiversity”. On the one hand, workers taking advantage of the acknowledged importance of the term have expanded its meaning to capture concerns at a fine scale, such as that focussing on a favourite single species. This focus might be referred to more accurately as one of “biospecifics”. At the coarser scale, one important interpretation, discussed below, advocates a primary linkage of biodiversity to the maintenance of ecosystem processes — what might be called the “bio-processes” approach.

The nub of the problem of defining biodiversity is that it is hard to exclude anything from a concept that is taken so easily to mean “everything”. Sarkar (2005) has argued that interpreting biodiversity across all biological levels, from genes to ecosystems, amounts to considering all biological entities, so that biodiversity absurdly “becomes all of biology”.

Callicott et al. (1999) examined “biodiversity” as one of the current normative concepts in conservation. They concluded that it remains ill-defined, and that distinctions can be made between “functional” and “compositional” perspectives in approaching biodiversity. “Functional” refers to a primarily concern with ecosystem and evolutionary processes, while “compositional” sees organisms as aggregated into populations, species, higher taxa, communities, and other categories. Callicott et al. call for a better integration of these different perspectives, an issue discussed below in the section on Integrating Process and Elements Perspectives.

Norton (1994) has argued that there will never be a single “objective scientific definition” of biodiversity, in the sense of a prescription for how to measure it. In fact, Norton claims that any increase in our understanding of biodiversity will make it less likely that there will be a single objective measure. This biodiversity pluralism is based on an argument that inevitably there are many different “theory bound” versions of biodiversity and many different ways to value it. This perspective is in accord with recognition of functional-compositional perspectives on biodiversity. For example, Norton (1994; 2001) points to recent emphasis on structure and process regarding ecological “health” or “integrity” that is seen as going beyond a conventional elements-oriented perspective for biodiversity. One cannot aggregate all these different versions of biodiversity. Instead, we are to “describe in ways appropriate given certain purposes” and the choice among these different biodiversity “models” will depend on what values are important to the decision-maker.

This perspective is characterized as “post-positivist” because it recognizes biodiversity as inevitably value-laden — there is no one, correct, measure of biodiversity to be discovered but many, each having different values. Roebuck and Phifer (1999) lament what they perceive as current “positivism” in biodiversity conservation, described by them as based variously on processes of verificationism and falsificationism in seeking facts. They argue that biodiversity conservation is rooted primarily in ethics and we must not continue to back away from values and advocacy.

The idea that the choice of a measure of biodiversity depends on values finds support in Sarkar (2005). He argues that biodiversity operationally amounts to whatever is the valued target of conservation priority setting for different localities.

Biodiversity may be a catch-all for various aspects of conservation, but the fresh perspectives arising from recognition of “biodiversity” suggest possible unifying concepts. E. O. Wilson (1988) sees “biodiversity” as corresponding to a dramatic transformation for biologists from a “bits and pieces” approach to a much more holistic approach. Wilson describes this change in perspective as a realization that biological diversity is disappearing and, unlike other threatened things, is irreversible. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a “biodiversity crisis”. Ehrenfeld (1988) similarly reinforces this idea of the value of diversity in the aggregate. He argues that diversity previously was never regarded in itself to be in danger, but that biodiversity now is recognised as endangered in its own right. Wrapped up in the term therefore is the idea of a “biodiversity crisis”. While the case for such a crisis itself raises debates about measures and definitions (see Sarkar, 2005), the definition of “biodiversity” sometimes explicitly reflects these links to an extinction crisis. Takacs (1996) reviews cases where the definition of biodiversity is wrapped up in the idea of strategies needed to preserve variation. In accord with this perspective is a shift to a focus on valuing ecosystem processes. This focus arguably will ensure maintenance and ongoing evolution of these systems, and therefore all of biodiversity.

Holistic perspectives on biodiversity have emerged also through another important focus. For Wilson (1988), biodiversity captures the idea of a “frontier of the future”, presenting a dazzling prospect of largely unknown variety, with unanticipated uses. Biodiversity is seen by many as a symbol for our lack of knowledge about the components of life’s variation, and their importance to humankind (see Takacs 1996). These arguments suggest that core biodiversity values might be based more on what we do not know than what we do know. Biodiversity can be viewed as primarily capturing the two-fold challenge of unknown variety, having unknown value.

Anticipated future uses and values of the unknown are captured in the idea of “option values” (for definitions, see World Conservation Union 1980). A species, or other element of biodiversity, has option value when its continued existence retains the possibility of future uses and benefits. Option value corresponds not just to unknown future values of known species, but also to the unknown values of unknown species (or other components of variation). This concept is at the core of biodiversity because it links “variation” and “value”. Estimating and quantifying the largely unknown variation that makes up biodiversity is one and the same as quantifying corresponding option values of biodiversity. According to this emphasis, a basic definition of biodiversity might be expanded as: the variety of all forms of life, from the scale of genes through to species and ecosystems …so forming a “calculus” — a means for measurement and comparison — of option values.

From Species Values to Biodiversity Values

2.1 Species Values and Triage

In developing ideas about the overall value of biodiversity it has been natural to draw on existing arguments about values of individual species (for review, see World Conservation Union 1980; Norton 1988). Commodity value and other direct use values have intuitive appeal because they reflect known values. But a key problem is that species need to be preserved for reasons other than any known value as resources for human use (Sober 1986). Callicott (1986) discusses philosophical arguments regarding non-utilitarian value and concludes that there is no easy argument to be made except a moral one. Species have some “intrinsic value” — reflecting the idea that a species has a value “in and for itself” (Callicott 1986, p.140) — and there is an ethical obligation to protect biodiversity.

A philosophical issue is whether such species values depend on a human-centered perspective. The environmental ethics entry notes that assessments of issues concerned with biodiversity allow for “commitment either to a purely anthropocentric or purely non-anthropocentric ethic”. Regan (1986) argues that we need “duties that are independent of out changeable needs and preferences.” Callicott (1986) sees the intrinsic value of species as not independent of human values, because such values can be linked to Hume’s theory of moral values. Norton (1986) sees all species as collectively embraced by an environmental ethic that is anthropocentric.

Randall (1988, p. 218) has argued that preference is the basis for value and that it is possible to treat all species values as preferences of humans. Preferences-based approaches to valuation can provide economic (dollar) estimates of value. This valuation process may include methods for assessing and quantifying option values. A claimed advantage of such approaches is that the only good way to protect species is to place an economic value on them. Randall argues that such quantification is advantageous because the species preservation option will fare well when the full range of values is included in conservation priority setting.

The context for many of these arguments has been a consideration of various criteria for placing priorities among species for conservation efforts. These considerations have led to debates about the role of “triage” based on species prioritization. Triage recalls the medical context in which priorities are set for investments in saving patients. Applied to conservation, individual species are differentially valued and assessed relative to differential opportunity costs. The best conservation package is to be found through a process of calculating costs and benefits of protection of individual species.

2.2 Species as Equal Units and SMS

Many biologists have rejected the idea of triage and argue that we must try to save all species (Takacs 1996). Philosophical issues arise in the debate as to whether biodiversity should be approached through the process of differentially valuing species, so that choices could be made in the face of a budget, or regarding species as the fundamental unit and trying to protect them all. The latter option is arguably more holistic and in accord with a focus on all of biodiversity (the individual species focus is sometimes viewed as the first of three phases of growth in biological resources assessment; see the section on The Shift from Elements to Processes).

If one nominated a “prequel” to Biodiversity (1988) it might be The Preservation of Species (Norton 1986). The title suggests a species focus, but the book’s subtitle refers to biological diversity. This book documents an attempt to move from values of species to some overall value of biodiversity, rejecting typical triage arguments based on benefits versus costs for individual species. Here, Norton criticizes the benefit — cost” approaches as piecemeal because every species must exhibit actual or potential use to justify itself. He argues that every species arguably has utilitarian value and that species perceived values are hard to estimate. For this reason, trying to place dollar values is “doomed to failure” (1986, p. 202). Norton concludes that we can’t try to sum up values (in accord with his general advocacy of no aggregation of biodiversity values). It is argued that we should abandon the “divide and conquer” approach and look at total diversity, with species as a unit: “each species in an area can be viewed as a unit of total diversity.” Ehrenfeld’s (1988) position is even more sharply defined: “value is an intrinsic part of biodiversity; it does not depend on the properties of the species in question.”

Alternatives to Unit-species

We can recognize two alternatives to the use of species as equal-weight units for an SMS. One of these (see the section on The Shift from Elements to Processes) consciously moves further away from units or items of any kind. Here, the valuation of species is seen as problematic, with arbitrary solutions. Valuation is to encompass all of biodiversity but through a functional perspective, shifting the focus to ecosystems processes (Norton 1994, 2001).

The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) has a major campaign to address the 2010 target, based on mobilising extensive museum species collections data to form the biodiversity calculus needed for exploring trade-offs and synergies in different regions [see GBIF 2010 Campaign]http://www.edinburgh.ceh.ac.uk/biota/Archive_2010target/8217.htm


Despite a wide range of usage, biodiversity remains a concept strongly linked to the idea of biological variation that is largely unknown in its extent, and its future values. Any “calculus” of biodiversity providing quantitative estimates of this unknown variation automatically provides at the same time a measure of those values that link to the need to maintain variety — option values and intrinsic values. Such values broadly reflect values of elements of biodiversity having unknown present value. These quantified values typically will not be in conventional units (e.g. dollars), but nevertheless can be balanced with other values of society. Decision making (for example, deciding whether we should invest in conservation of area A or area B) may require only estimates of relative gains in represented variation offered by different places (their “complementarity” values). Complementarity helps integrate biodiversity option values with other values attributed to biodiversity, and with values of society more generally. This integrative process, together with processes for the growth of knowledge about components of biodiversity, provide an alternative to the “post-positivism” perspective that sees biodiversity conservation as predominantly value-laden.

The perspective that biodiversity reflects option and intrinsic values, to be balanced with other values, appears to be compatible with the broader discipline of conservation biology: “the field is rooted in a philosophy of stewardship rather than one of utilitarianism or consumption. The latter has been the basis of traditional resource conservation, that is, conserving resources solely for their economic use and human consumption” (Meffe 2000).



UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said more must be done to repair damage done in the Gaza Strip by Israeli military action one year ago.



The Natural Capital Institute serves the people who are transforming the world.

The Natural Capital Institute serves the people who are transforming the world. We are a team of researchers, teachers, students, activists, scholars, writers, social entrepreneurs, artists, and volunteers committed to the restoration of the earth and the healing of human culture. We do two things: we describe pathways of change in books and research reports, and we create tools for connecting the individuals, information, and organizations that create change.

Researching the world’s non-governmental-organizations working in the field of Clean Water and Sanitation. We created a database of direct-effect organizations, and identified key leverage opportunities for grantmaking foundations and concerned individuals. http://www.naturalcapital.org/pastprojects.htm

“An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy–or worse.”

Bill Moyers (Member of Bilderberg Group)

WiserEarth promotes social change by empowering the largest and fastest growing movement in the world—the hundreds of thousands of organizations within civil society that address social justice, poverty, and the environment. WiserEarth is a commercial free, community-editable site that provides tools to help these organizations find each other, collaborate, share resources and build alliances.

  • Contains the most extensive international directory of more than 100,000 organizations based in 243 countries, sovereign islands, and territories, including contact details, geographic maps, areas of interest, and mission statements.

“Historically social movements have arisen primarily because of injustice, inequities, and corruption. Those woes remain legion but a new condition exists that has no precedent: the planet has a life threatening disease that is marked by massive ecological degradation and rapid climate change.”





At the meeting of the environment ministers of the G8 countries and the five major newly industrializing countries that took place in Potsdam in March 2007, the German government proposed a study on ‘The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity’ as part of the so-called ‘Potsdam Initiative’ for biodiversity.

The following wording was agreed at Potsdam: ‘In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.’

This proposal was endorsed by G8+5 leaders at the Heiligendamm Summit on 6-8 June 2007.



Possible Related Posts:



Bilderbergers: Creating a New World Order or completing “Work of the Ages”?

“All this chaos, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the overall disasters have a genuine purpose. It is all very carefully planned by a few people, mostly men,  behind the scenes, high up in the society, above any power structure that the ordinary citizen is aware of. It is a modern extension of an old theme to “take over the world”. To those people, power, control and wealth is their true religion and they use any means they can to maintain their power and control, including murder and genocide.

These people on top, who basically claim to be of “royal bloodlines” (Kenites-Sons of Cain via Satan & Eve), are currently working on reducing the world population in order to easier maintain their control, and ultimately the strive towards a centralization of power, a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT SYSTEM.

This is a very old plan; something the same bloodlines have been working towards for millennia. However, now is the time when they have the means to accomplish their goal and fulfill the “Work of the Ages”. They see us citizens as inferior and are dehumanizing us in their own minds to the extent that they don’t care if we live or if we die. In a future Global Society, if they manage to accomplish this to its full extent, you and I will be no more than slaves, whom they can kill and treat as they want anytime they want.

Many people call this the New World Order, but it is really an Old World Order which is now about to be fully accomplished, unless we do something about it.”–Wes Penre, Illuminati News

JFK WARNED US and died for it!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Interview was conducted on March of 2007 where Brzezinski (Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor) openly discusses and jokes about his affiliation with these globalist think tanks.

The Bilderberg group and their secret and not so secret meetings have all had one main objective – how to reduce the number of human beings on the planet. These New World Order elitist scumbags are dictating who has the right to live and who doesn’t.


Who are/were members of the Bilderberg Group?

Josef Ackermann Business 7-Feb-1948 CEO of Deutsche Bank
Umberto Agnelli Business 1-Nov-1934 27-May-2004 Chairman of Fiat, 2003-04
Fouad Ajami Author 9-Sep-1945 Director of Middle East Studies, SAIS
Paul Allaire Business 21-Jul-1938 Twice CEO of Xerox
Graham T. Allison Scholar 23-Mar-1940 Kennedy School of Government
Joaquin Almunia Politician 17-Jun-1948 EU Economic Affairs Commissioner
Roger C. Altman Business c. 1945 CEO of Evercore Partners
Ed Balls Politician 25-Feb-1967 British MP, Normanton
Robert L. Bartley Editor 12-Oct-1937 10-Dec-2003 Editor of the Wall Street Journal, 1979-2003
Evan Bayh Politician 26-Dec-1955 US Senator from Indiana
Queen Beatrix I Royalty 31-Jan-1938 Queen of the Netherlands
Ben Bernanke Economist 13-Dec-1953 Federal Reserve Chairman
Prince Bernhard Royalty 29-Jun-1911 1-Dec-2004 Prince of the Netherlands
Carl Bildt Head of State 15-Jul-1949 Foreign Minister of Sweden
Conrad Black Business 25-Aug-1944 Rapacious newspaper mogul
Charles G. Boyd Military 15-Apr-1938 Retired General, US Air Force
John Browne Business 20-Feb-1948 CEO of British Petroleum, 1995-2007
John H. Bryan Business 5-Oct-1936 CEO of Sara Lee, 1975-2000
William F. Buckley Columnist 24-Nov-1925 27-Feb-2008 National Review
William Bundy Government 24-Sep-1917 6-Oct-2000 Cold War advisor to JFK, LBJ
Peter Carington Government 6-Jun-1919 UK Foreign Secretary, 1979-82
Henri de Castries Business c. 1954 CEO of AXA
Ahmed Chalabi Government 30-Oct-1944 Prominent on the Iraqi Provisional Council
Raymond Chrétien Diplomat 20-May-1942 Canadian Ambassador to the US, 1995-2000
W. Edmund Clark Business c. 1947 CEO of Toronto Dominion Bank
Kenneth Clarke Politician 2-Jul-1940 Chancellor of the Exchequer, 1993-97
Bill Clinton Head of State 19-Aug-1946 42nd US President, 1993-2001
Marshall A. Cohen Business c. 1935 CEO of Molson, 1988-96
Timothy C. Collins Business c. 1956 Private equity, Ripplewood Holdings
Bertrand P. Collomb Business c. 1943 CEO of Lafarge SA, 1987-2003
Jon Corzine Politician 1-Jan-1947 Governor of New Jersey
Chester A. Crocker Government 29-Oct-1941 Asst. Secy. State, African Affairs, 1981-89
Claes Dahlbäck Business c. 1948 CEO of Investor AB, 1978-99
Tom Daschle Politician 9-Dec-1947 US Senator from South Dakota, 1987-2005
Paul G. Desmarais, Jr. Business 3-Jul-1954 Co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada
John Deutch Government 27-Jul-1938 CIA Director, 1995-96
Chris Dodd Politician 27-May-1944 US Senator from Connecticut
Thomas E. Donilon Attorney c. 1955 O’Melvany and Myers
Esther Dyson Business 14-Jul-1951 EDventure Holdings, former ICANN director
Murray Edwards Business c. 1959 Canadian Natural Resources
Martha J. Farah Psychologist c. 1955 Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, UPenn
Dianne Feinstein Politician 22-Jun-1933 US Senator from California
Martin Feldstein Economist 25-Nov-1939 Reagan economist
Anthony S. Fell Business c. 1941 Chairman, RBC Capital Markets
Harold Ford Politician 11-May-1970 Congressman from Tennessee, 1997-2007
Stephen Friedman Business 21-Dec-1937 Former Partner, Goldman Sachs
Thomas Friedman Journalist 20-Jul-1953 New York Times
Melinda Gates Philanthropist 15-Aug-1964 Married to Bill Gates
Timothy F. Geithner Government 18-Aug-1961 US Secretary of the Treasury
David Gergen Columnist 9-May-1942 Advisor to Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton
Paul Gigot Columnist 1955 Wall Street Journal columnist
Donald E. Graham Journalist 22-Apr-1945 Washington Post CEO
Katharine Graham Publisher 16-Jun-1917 17-Jul-2001 Washington Post publisher, 1966-79
Richard Haass Government 1951 President, Council on Foreign Relations
Chuck Hagel Politician 4-Oct-1946 US Senator from Nebraska
Richard C. Holbrooke Diplomat 24-Apr-1941 US Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Allan Hubbard Economist 8-Sep-1947 George W. Bush economist
Kenneth Jacobs Business c. 1958 CEO of Lazard North America
Merit E. Janow Educator 13-May-1958 Professor of Int’l Affairs, Columbia University
Peter Jennings Journalist 29-Jul-1938 7-Aug-2005 Former anchor, ABC World News Tonight
James A. Johnson Business 24-Dec-1943 CEO of Fannie Mae, 1991-98
J. Bennett Johnston Politician 10-Jun-1932 US Senator from Louisiana, 1972-97
Vernon Jordan Business 15-Aug-1935 Advisor to Bill Clinton
Muhtar Kent Business c. 1952 CEO of Coca-Cola
Henry Kissinger Government 27-May-1923 US Secretary of State, 1973-77
Klaus Kleinfeld Business 6-Nov-1957 President and COO of Alcoa
Andrew S. B. Knight Journalist 1-Nov-1939 Editor of The Economist, 1974-86
Henry Kravis Business 6-Jan-1944 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts
Marie-Josée Kravis Economist 11-Sep-1949 President of MoMA
Bill Kristol Columnist 23-Dec-1952 Editor of The Weekly Standard
Neelie Kroes Government 19-Jul-1941 EU Commissioner of Competition
Jan Leschly Business ? CEO of SmithKline Beecham, 1994-2000
William J. Luti Military c. 1952 NSC Defense Policy Adviser
Peter Mandelson Politician 21-Oct-1953 EU Commissioner for Trade
Jessica Tuchman Mathews Government 1946 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Charles Mathias Politician 24-Jul-1922 US Senator from Maryland, 1969-87
Charlie McCreevy Politician 30-Sep-1948 EU Commissioner, Internal Market and Services
William J. McDonough Business c. 1934 President of New York Fed, 1993-2003
Frank J. McKenna Politician 19-Jan-1948 Canadian Ambassador to the US, 2005-06
Tom McKillop Business 19-Mar-1943 Chairman, Royal Bank of Scotland
George J. Mitchell Politician 20-Aug-1933 US Middle East Envoy
Bill Moyers Journalist 6-Jun-1934 NOW with Bill Moyers
Craig Mundie Business c. 1949 CTO of Microsoft
George Pataki Politician 24-Jun-1945 Governor of New York, 1995-2006
Henry M. Paulson Business 28-Mar-1946 US Secretary of the Treasury
Frank H. Pearl Business c. 1943 CEO of Perseus LLC
Richard Perle Government 16-Sep-1941 Prince of Darkness
Fredrik Reinfeldt Head of State 4-Aug-1965 Prime Minister of Sweden
Bill Richardson Politician 15-Nov-1947 Governor of New Mexico
Rozanne L. Ridgway Diplomat 22-Aug-1935 Asst. Secy. of State for Europe, 1985-89
Don Riegle Politician 4-Feb-1938 US Senator from Michigan, 1976-95
David Rockefeller Business 12-Jun-1915 Founder of the Trilateral Commission
Charlie Rose Talk Show Host 5-Jan-1942 Charlie Rose Show
Dennis B. Ross Diplomat c. 1949 US Middle East Envoy, 1992-2000
Lynn Forester de Rothschild Business 2-Jul-1954 Telecom executive
Barnett R. Rubin Educator c. 1950 The Fragmentation of Afghanistan
Mark Sanford Politician 28-May-1960 Governor of South Carolina
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer Politician 3-Apr-1948 NATO Secretary General, 2004-09
Eric Schmidt Business 1955 CEO of Google
Kathleen Sebelius Politician 15-May-1948 Governor of Kansas
John Shad Government 27-Jun-1923 Jul-1994 SEC Chairman, 1981-87
Robert B. Shapiro Business 4-Aug-1938 CEO of Monsanto, 1995-2000
George Shultz Government 13-Dec-1920 US Secretary of State, 1982-89
George Soros Business 12-Aug-1930 Hungarian financial speculator
Lesley Stahl Journalist 16-Dec-1941 60 Minutes
James B. Steinberg Government c. 1951 Deputy National Security Advisor, 1997-2001
Dennis Stevenson Business 19-Jul-1945 Chairman of HBOS
Lawrence H. Summers Economist 30-Nov-1954 US Treasury Secretary, 1999-2001
Peter Sutherland Government 25-Apr-1946 First Director General of the WTO
Peter Thiel Business 1967 Co-Founder of PayPal
Jean-Claude Trichet Business 20-Dec-1942 President, European Central Bank
Sanam Vakil Educator ? Mideast Scholar, SAIS
John Vinocur Journalist ? International Herald Tribune correspondent
Vin Weber Politician 24-Jul-1952 Congressman from Minnesota, 1981-93
John C. Whitehead Business 1922 US Deputy Secretary of State, 1985-89
Michael H. Wilson Politician 4-Nov-1937 Canadian Ambassador to the US
James Wolfensohn Business 1-Dec-1933 World Bank president, 1995-2005
Paul Wolfowitz Government 22-Dec-1943 President of the World Bank, 2005-07
Daniel Yergin Author 6-Feb-1947 The Prize
Robert Zoellick Government 25-Jul-1953 World Bank president


Governor of Texas, Rick Perry off to secret forum in Turkey

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, May 31, 2007

By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul, Turkey, today to speak at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of about 130 international leaders in business, media and politics.



Related Links:







League of Nations (later changed to United Nations) Created in 1919-20 with Woodrow Wilson US president

Eric Holder could be placed in charge of OUR RIGHT TO BEAR and Own ARMS!! HR45

guncontrol worksFolks, this gets scarier by the day. The VERY SAME man that freed and dismissed 2 men dressed as “Black Panthers”  (see latest development on this case) who were blocking access and sporting nightsticks at the voting polls in Philly last year, could very well be granted authority over ALL AMERICANS over the right to own and bear arms!

This is also the very same man that has with VICIOUS POLITICAL INTENT, gone after the past administration looking for “Social Justice” for those that committed an act of WAR upon the American People on our own soil!

Our Constitution states without DOUBT and with PERFECT CLARITY the reasons why we the people shall be allowed to own guns. So the FACT that this current administration would wish to disarm us is prophetic!

The world history model for societies who were forcefully regulated and disarmed by their governments and ruling dictators, has not ended well for the people. WAKE UP and smell the COMMUNISM!!pg

It is time to REAFFIRM our LIBERTIES and OUR RIGHTS GRANTED by our founding fathers!!

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.” – Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson




Below are a few paragraphs from HR 45 that I found EXTREMELY TELLING and FOREBODING!!


(a) Findings- Congress finds that–

      (1) the manufacture, distribution, and importation of firearms is inherently commercial in nature;


      (2) firearms regularly move in interstate commerce;

      (3) to the extent that firearms trafficking is intrastate in nature, it arises out of and is substantially connected with a commercial transaction, which, when viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce;


      (4) because the intrastate and interstate trafficking of firearms are so commingled, full regulation of interstate commerce requires the incidental regulation of intrastate commerce;

      (5) gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and

      (6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.

(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–

(1) firearms trafficking is prevalent and widespread in and among the States, and it is usually impossible to distinguish between intrastate trafficking and interstate trafficking; and

(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.


(a) In General- In this Act:

      (1) FIREARM; LICENSED DEALER; LICENSED MANUFACTURER; STATE- The terms ‘firearm’, ‘licensed dealer’, ‘licensed manufacturer’, and ‘State’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code.


(2) QUALIFYING FIREARM The term ‘qualifying firearm’ has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’–

‘(A) means–

‘(i) any handgun; or‘

      (ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.


Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-

    • ‘(A) under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or

      ‘(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.

          ‘(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and

      ‘(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.’

‘(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license–

‘(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term ‘applicable date’ means-


            • (A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

          (B) the safe handling of firearms;

          (C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use

          (D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

        • (E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

      (1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;

      (2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;

      (3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;

      (4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
      (7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–(8) an authorization by the applicant 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; and

      (10) the signature of the applicant.

      (1) provide for submission of the application through a licensed dealer or an office or agency of the Federal Government designated by the Attorney General;

      (2) require the applicant to provide a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, containing a photograph of the applicant, to the licensed dealer or to the office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable, at the time of submission of the application to that dealer, office, or agency; and

      (3) require that a completed application be forwarded to the Attorney General not later than 48 hours after the application is submitted to the licensed dealer or office or agency of the Federal Government, as applicable.

          (1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall charge and collect from each applicant for a license under this title a fee in an amount determined in accordance with paragraph (2).

          (2) FEE AMOUNT- The amount of the fee collected under this subsection shall be not less than the amount determined by the Attorney General to be necessary to ensure that the total amount of all fees collected under this subsection during a fiscal year is sufficient to cover the costs of carrying out this title during that fiscal year, except that such amount shall not exceed $25.

(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include–

(b) Regulations Governing Submission- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations specifying procedures for the submission of applications to the Attorney General under this section, which regulations shall–

(c) Fees-


(a) In General- The Attorney General shall issue a firearm license to an applicant who has submitted an application that meets the requirements of section 102 of this Act, if the Attorney General ascertains that the individual is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.

(b) Effect of Issuance to Prohibited Person- A firearm license issued under this section shall be null and void if issued to a person who is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm.

(c) Form of License- A firearm license issued under this section shall be in the form of a tamper-resistant card, and shall include–

(1) the photograph of the licensed individual submitted with the application;

(2) the address of the licensed individual;

(3) the date of birth of the licensed individual;

(4) a license number, unique to each licensed individual;(5) the expiration date of the license, which shall be the date that is 5 years after the initial anniversary of the date of birth of the licensed individual following the date on which the license is issued (or in the case of a license renewal, following the date on which the license is renewed under section 104);

(6) the signature of the licensed individual provided on the application, or a facsimile of the application; and

(7) centered at the top of the license, capitalized, and in boldface type, the following:



Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, and 302 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(ee) Failure To Report Loss or Theft of Firearm- It shall be unlawful for any person who owns a qualifying firearm to fail to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours after the loss or theft is discovered.’


Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by sections 101, 201, 301, 302, and 303 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(ff) Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address It shall be unlawful for any individual to whom a firearm license has been issued under title I of Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 to fail to report to the Attorney General a change in the address of that individual within 60 days of that change of address.’.


(a) Failure To Possess Firearm License; Failure To Comply With Qualifying Firearm Sale or Transfer Requirements; Failure To Maintain or Permit Inspection of Records- Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (aa), (bb), or (dd) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.’

(b) Failure To Comply With Universal Background Checks; Failure To Timely Report Loss or Theft of a Qualifying Firearm; Failure To Provide Notice of Change of Address- Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended by striking ‘(s) or (t)’ and inserting ‘(t), (cc), (ee), or (ff)’

(c) Child Access Prevention- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(9) Whoever violates section 105(a)(2) of Blair Holt’s Handgun Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, knowingly or having reason to believe that the person is prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, from receiving a firearm, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

‘(10) Whoever violates section 922(gg) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’


Bill HR 45


Possibly related Posts




The BIG Lie:Reconstruction of the Democractic Party


How INTERESTING that baby Barack and his Socialist Workers Party aka Democrat Party, now claim to be the party of the minority, when history tells a different story.

My family were Democrats. Not sure if it was  by ‘choice’  or due in part  to geographical location and/or the Reconstruction of the South.

I don’t recall any memories of ‘slave ownership”, but I do remember talk and the anger at the carpet-beggars/ THIEVES that came in and took land and possessions from most returning from the war.

Under the dictates of the Radical Republicans, the US Congress passed the punitive Reconstruction Act of 1867 over Pres. Andrew Johnson’s veto and the prior wishes of  Pres. Lincoln.

This act sought to rebuild the governments of the Southern states into the Northern mold and ensure the civil rights of the freed blacks. The members of the existing state governments in the South, made up of the leaders of the Confederacy, were removed, and the states were place under the military rule of the US Army. No one who had supported the Confederate government was allowed to vote or hold political office. As a result, the states were controlled by scalawags and carpetbaggers and the military rulers of the Radical Republican Congress.

Some 200,000 US soldiers were stationed throughout the South to preserve order and carry out the dictates of Congress. These military commanders had virtually unlimited power. What is seldom discussed is that the war in the South did not end after 4 years and the signing of surrender by Gen. Robert E. Lee, but lasted another 10 years!! Some of it I’m sure was due to those that would not follow anti-slavery laws, but in most cases, it was the average NON-slave owner, just folks trying to move forward, provide a living and shelter,  for their families that were hurt from these unscrupulous Radicals.  And such was their life, until 1877, when Rutherford B. Hayes agreed to return the states to home rule in exchange for Southern support in his bid for the presidency.

It is from this ancestry that memories were passed down to me and from this that I find my Southern Pride.  Not from the horrible injustice of slavery, but from ancestors that not only survived the Civil War, but also the years of horror and hardship that came after. (Note: I had ancestors that served in the Northern army and also the South, as many did during that era.)

Here is a photo from my grandmother’s photo album. My father is the little boy holding the boat paddle. 1920’s


What the South was REALLY fighting for!

The Night They Drove Ole’ Dixie Down:

Black Confederate in Ringold

A Tribute To Our Black Confederate Heroes by Heritage Not Hate Productions

“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youths will be taught by Northern school teachers; learn from Northern school books THEIR version of the war.” —–Confederate General Patrick Cleburne, 1864


Is Secession legal??


Character: Lee and Jackson

“Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.” –Robert E. Lee

“[M]y religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.” –Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson

Today we take a moment to remember the birth anniversaries of Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19) and Stonewall Jackson (Jan. 21), two of the greatest military commanders in American history. They also were great men of faith who gave their all (Jackson his life) for the cause of liberty and states’ rights, which we at The Patriot hold so dear. Some may question our decision to honor men of the Confederate States of America, but we encourage those readers to consider our correction of the record. The honor we give these men has its roots in the founding of this great nation.

Mark Alexander notes in his essay,”Lincoln’s Legacy at 200,” that “the causal case for states’ rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln’s request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: ‘I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state… I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.’ He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: ‘Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty, and peace shall find him a defender.'”


Holder: Clear and Present Danger?


Clear and present danger is a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States,  concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:

“ The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.


Obama doesn’t want it??? Really??? Okay….that is transparent even for me!

What Holder,  “ETAL”   are doing is without any doubt in my mind considered a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER!!

Did those commi-fools forget we are at WAR and have TROOPS in danger zones!!!!!!!!

Politics be damned and those that are doing this TREASONOUS ACT be damned also!

If Holder wants to try a  REAL case and show us REAL justice,  how about those “black panther wanna-be’s”  at the voting booth in Philly holding the nightsticks!! (See Latest Development 12-20-09)

My opinion to those that do not like America and do not consider themselves Americans in this day and time,  There is NO ONE stopping you from leaving!  It’s time to GET OVER IT, Grow up, stop whining and blaming all your problems on others,  and ACT like a REAL American or take your radical butts back to your mother land! We don’t want to hear your bogus crap anymore! All you are doing is empowering those that are really keeping you down—-

NEWS FLASH!!! It is usually the ones that claim they have been helping you for 40+ years, yet, your turn NEVER comes!!! They prosper, but you never do and you know why? Because that is what they want—to keep you down and dependent on them to gain your vote. They are snake oil salemen, scammers, the new age ‘slave-masters’ of the worst sort, yet, you believe them because they promise things for ‘free”.

When will you LEARN, Nothing in this life is FREE!!

“Black Panthers” at voting poll with nightsticks

Holder drops charges against “Black Panthers”

Obama lists the Black Panthers on his Web Site

Click here to See Latest Development  12-20-09 on the dropped “Panther” case above

New Black Panther are Nationalist and Anti-Americans (They need to get away from the oppressive Democrat party to find true freedom)

DHS launches Rabid Attack on American Citizens



Dear Concerned Citizen, Did you know that your government considers you a “rightwing extremist?”

IT’S TRUE! According to news reports, the Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” labeling citizens opposed to new firearms restrictions, returning veterans and conservatives as “rightwing extremists” and associating them with white supremacists and violent antigovernment groups.

You read that right — it appears that the Obama Administration, and especially the DHS under Janet Napolitano, is trying to demonize political dissent. And it’s no big surprise who’s directly in their crosshairs: supporters of the Second Amendment, including veterans and gun owners.

Who is funding this kind of nonsense? Well, YOU are. Why would your government spend your money attacking YOU, instead of spending your money PROTECTING you? This calls for grassroots action, on a HUGE scale! TELL CONGRESS TO CONDEMN THIS GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS AND VETERANS: CALL or SEND YOUR FAXES or EMAILS  NOW!

The report also says that Congressional debates about immigration and gun control make extremist groups suspicious and give them a rallying cry: “It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists,” the report said.

Why are they worried? Because since November, more than 7 million people have applied for criminal background checks in order to buy weapons. And as far as the Obama administration is concerned, buying guns equals “weapons stockpiling,” buying ammo equals “hoarding of ammunition,” and expressing concern about Congress passing gun control legislation qualifies YOU as part of an “extremist group.”

Therefore, you and I are now being viewed as dangerous rightwing extremists that law enforcement officials need to be watching out for!



This report was released “hot on the heels” of another (state) government agency report in February: the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report titled, “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement.”

In this horrific “law enforcement sensitive” secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone “militia members.”

According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous “militia member”: * The United Nations * The New World Order * Gun Control * The violation of Posse Comitatus * The Federal Reserve * The Income Tax * The Ammunition and Accountability Act * A possible Constitutional Convention * The North American Union * Universal Service Program * Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) * Abortion * Illegal Immigration.

{Boy am I EVER IN BIG TROUBLE. I think I have written reports on ALL these issues???LOL}

Well, there you have it! You see?

You ARE a dangerous rightwing extremist! As ridiculous as that report seems, it was distributed to law enforcement officials across the state of Missouri. And it wasn’t until the state government was FLOODED with protests from patriotic Americans across the country, that they finally came out and denounced and retracted the MIAC document.

Now, it’s happened again — but this time, at the Federal level! Our own government is turning against us, and unless there is a HUGE outpouring of outrage from every part of this nation, it will just keep getting WORSE!

Interestingly enough, no left-leaning political ideologies were identified. No Islamic extremists. No environmental extremists. Only people holding “conservative” or “right-wing” philosophies were identified in BOTH the MIAC report AND the Homeland Security “assessment.” This shouldn’t be too surprising: both of these reports are similar to several other reports currently circulating around various State police agencies, courtesy of DHS-sponsored “Fusion Centers.” MIAC is one of those Centers, sponsored by the DHS!

So now, even veterans are targets of our own government: The Homeland Security assessment specifically says that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.”

PLEASE, don’t think we’re making a “big deal” out of nothing! Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban specifically told the press, “This is nothing unusual,” and added that the Homeland Security Department did this “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The authors of this assessment are pushing an “Us against Them” philosophy. You and I are being marginalized — labeled as fringe kooks, “rightwing extremists,” so that it will be easier to violate our liberties and take away our right to keep and bear arms in the future.

The only thing that will put a STOP to this nonsense is a huge public outcry opposing it. If we do nothing, however, it will soon be too late to do anything. We either stop it NOW, or it will grow into an out-of-control monster that will monitor and control the personal opinions and speech of every man, woman, and child in this country.

As patriotic Americans, we need to DEMAND that this outrageous report be CONDEMNED by our Representatives in Congress, and RETRACTED by the Obama administration — NOW. They, along with Secretary Napolitano, owe every conservative American, every veteran and every gun owner who supports limited government an apology. Please take time to CONTACT your State Representatives, EVERY Senator, Governor, mayor,  and /or  EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, telling them to take action against this report TODAY!

Sincerely, Alan Gottlieb, Chairman Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

DHS Report