The latest Rasmussen poll shows Tim Cahill gaining support as the governor's race enters the final two weeks of the campaign. Without leaners, Cahill is at 14% -- up from 11% in the last Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen includes leaners in the Massachusetts polling, but not in the Maine gubernatorial race to apparently benefit the Republican candidates in both states.
"We call on Rasmussen Reports to release the full results of its polls in Massachusetts, rather than mislead voters by releasing selective information. This poll clearly shows that Tim Cahill is gaining ground in the critical stretch before Election Day, not fading as Scott Rasmussen predicted," said Cahill Campaign Manager Scott Campbell.
Rasmussen describes, "Leaners are those who initially indicate no preference for either of the candidates but answer a follow-up question and say they are leaning towards a particular candidate. The approach anticipates that support for third party candidates typically declines as Election Day nears and voters begin to gravitate toward one of the major party nominees. Rasmussen Reports now considers results with leaners the primary indicator of the race."
"Our numbers are not fading; Tim Cahill is gaining ground in the polls in the final days, as some opponents lose points. We are in this race to win it." said Campbell.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
News from Tim Cahill (I) for MA Govenor
About TimNewsEventsDonateVolunteer Media CenterCampaign NewsThe Cahill BlogSun, 2010-09-26 11:06 — admin
“Yesterday’s poll results are evidence that this race is very much up for grabs. The large number of undecided voters indicates that voters are fed up with negative campaigning, attack ads and the two-party system. They are looking for somewhere to turn. I have remained resilient and unwavering to my values in the face of national parties’ attacks for months. This poll is more evidence of that smear campaign but it’s not about the polls but about the message and the results, like Harry Truman said, ‘How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?’ We're going to continue working on solutions for job creation and highlighting my successful leadership. When voters learn about my opponents’ failed attempts at leadership and realize that we must go in a new direction if we want different results, they will join in our effort. My supporters and I will spend the remaining days of this campaign fighting for the principles and values of the middle class citizens who have been forgotten by both parties. They deserve for their voices to be heard and I will continue to fight for them,” said Timothy P. Cahill.
“Yesterday’s poll results are evidence that this race is very much up for grabs. The large number of undecided voters indicates that voters are fed up with negative campaigning, attack ads and the two-party system. They are looking for somewhere to turn. I have remained resilient and unwavering to my values in the face of national parties’ attacks for months. This poll is more evidence of that smear campaign but it’s not about the polls but about the message and the results, like Harry Truman said, ‘How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?’ We're going to continue working on solutions for job creation and highlighting my successful leadership. When voters learn about my opponents’ failed attempts at leadership and realize that we must go in a new direction if we want different results, they will join in our effort. My supporters and I will spend the remaining days of this campaign fighting for the principles and values of the middle class citizens who have been forgotten by both parties. They deserve for their voices to be heard and I will continue to fight for them,” said Timothy P. Cahill.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Proof Please
I am tried of bad reporting by a newspaper that was once one of the best forth estate papers in New England. On Sept.3th Rep. Jeff Perry was tried,convicted, and sentenced with out any proof of a crime. If Rep.Perry did something illegal as a police officer the Herald reported should have done an investigative piece that would have lead to an incitement.
If Rep. Perry is guilt why was he NOT charged with patella. He had a subordinate who was charged and convicted. The reasoning of the Herald reporter would go like this in the news paper business. A reporter kills a young girl and ten years later we are writing stories about what a bad person his editor is.The guilty reporter is doing life at Cedar Junction. Why
didn't editor know the reporter was a murder. The editor did not editorialize that the reporter was not guilt. We still talk trash about the editor because his/her subordinate is a convicted murder.
Why would the Liberal reporter at the Boston Herald endores Mr. Malone?
If Rep. Perry is guilt why was he NOT charged with patella. He had a subordinate who was charged and convicted. The reasoning of the Herald reporter would go like this in the news paper business. A reporter kills a young girl and ten years later we are writing stories about what a bad person his editor is.The guilty reporter is doing life at Cedar Junction. Why
didn't editor know the reporter was a murder. The editor did not editorialize that the reporter was not guilt. We still talk trash about the editor because his/her subordinate is a convicted murder.
Why would the Liberal reporter at the Boston Herald endores Mr. Malone?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Malone Needs Mojoe
Joe Malone is a blast from the past. Some people in the Republican Party have thawed Joe out to run for Congress. He is as out of step with the voters of the 10th Congressal District as Austin Powers was when he was thawed out. Joe's mojoe dried up decades ago.
Many voters in the district were not born the last time Mr.Malone held elected office. Jeff Perry is a state representative. He was offered the Perry amendment which would have forced the state to check citizenship before giving public housing, state medicaid, or free state college tuition out.The same party stopped the Perry amendment are taking the state of Arizona to US Court. Joe should be more concerned about illegals now than a 23 year old policeman in the 1980's. The 80's was closer to the time when Joe had his political mojoe.
We the people deserve a working statesman in Washington NOT thawed out Ma polotican.
Many voters in the district were not born the last time Mr.Malone held elected office. Jeff Perry is a state representative. He was offered the Perry amendment which would have forced the state to check citizenship before giving public housing, state medicaid, or free state college tuition out.The same party stopped the Perry amendment are taking the state of Arizona to US Court. Joe should be more concerned about illegals now than a 23 year old policeman in the 1980's. The 80's was closer to the time when Joe had his political mojoe.
We the people deserve a working statesman in Washington NOT thawed out Ma polotican.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Palin: Obama Doesn't Have 'Cojones'
Palin: Obama Doesn't Have 'Cojones'
Monday, 02 Aug 2010 11:07 AM Article Font Size
By: John Rossomando
Sarah Palin assesses President Barack Obama’s approach to immigration bluntly: declaring that he doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the nation’s laws.
The former Alaska governor used the term — the Spanish word for “testicles” that often is used to mean courage — during a Fox News interview Sunday as she praised Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for standing up against the Obama administration’s lawsuit to block enforcement of the state’s immigration law.
Brewer “has the cojones that our president does not have,” Palin told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. “If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to support Jan Brewer in state laws, state efforts to do what our president won’t do.”
A federal district court judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, including the section instructing law enforcement officers to check a person’s immigration status where “reasonable suspicion” exists a person they have detained is illegal.
Palin, who described the court injunction as “temporary,” praised Brewer for continuing the fight with the Obama administration to enforce the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected hear Arizona’s appeal in early November.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate also pointed to the administration’s failure to act against so-called “sanctuary cities” around the country that refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities to show the hypocrisy of its argument against the Arizona law.
The administration contends that Arizona has circumvented federal law by ordering local authorities to enforce federal immigration law but has not applied the same reasoning to cities that refuse to enforce the same laws.
“The Obama administration did not put up a fight at all against this idea . . . of having sanctuary cities,” Palin said. “We’ve seen state laws where they are allowing for sanctuary cities, and that trumps a federal law, yet nobody’s saying ‘boo’ about that.
“Jan Brewer and other governors were protecting their citizens — protecting the nation as a whole — were very, very faithful that they are willing to go toe to toe and go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be and get this thing resolved.”
Meanwhile, Obama, appearing on CBS’ “Early Show” with Harry Smith Sunday, Obama said he understands people’s frustration with illegal immigration but warned against states taking action on their own.
“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue,” Obama said on the program, which was taped Friday and also aired Monday. “And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m gonna be anti-immigrant, and I’m gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 02 Aug 2010 11:07 AM Article Font Size
By: John Rossomando
Sarah Palin assesses President Barack Obama’s approach to immigration bluntly: declaring that he doesn’t have the “cojones” to enforce the nation’s laws.
The former Alaska governor used the term — the Spanish word for “testicles” that often is used to mean courage — during a Fox News interview Sunday as she praised Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for standing up against the Obama administration’s lawsuit to block enforcement of the state’s immigration law.
Brewer “has the cojones that our president does not have,” Palin told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. “If our own president will not enforce a federal law, more power to Jan Brewer and 44 other states who are in line to support Jan Brewer in state laws, state efforts to do what our president won’t do.”
A federal district court judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, including the section instructing law enforcement officers to check a person’s immigration status where “reasonable suspicion” exists a person they have detained is illegal.
Palin, who described the court injunction as “temporary,” praised Brewer for continuing the fight with the Obama administration to enforce the law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected hear Arizona’s appeal in early November.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate also pointed to the administration’s failure to act against so-called “sanctuary cities” around the country that refuse to turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities to show the hypocrisy of its argument against the Arizona law.
The administration contends that Arizona has circumvented federal law by ordering local authorities to enforce federal immigration law but has not applied the same reasoning to cities that refuse to enforce the same laws.
“The Obama administration did not put up a fight at all against this idea . . . of having sanctuary cities,” Palin said. “We’ve seen state laws where they are allowing for sanctuary cities, and that trumps a federal law, yet nobody’s saying ‘boo’ about that.
“Jan Brewer and other governors were protecting their citizens — protecting the nation as a whole — were very, very faithful that they are willing to go toe to toe and go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be and get this thing resolved.”
Meanwhile, Obama, appearing on CBS’ “Early Show” with Harry Smith Sunday, Obama said he understands people’s frustration with illegal immigration but warned against states taking action on their own.
“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona. But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue,” Obama said on the program, which was taped Friday and also aired Monday. “And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m gonna be anti-immigrant, and I’m gonna try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Kagan Promoted Shariah Law
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Kagan Promoted Shariah Law at Harvard
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.
Having worked with Elena Kagan at the Bill Clinton White House, I was inclined to see her as a political moderate, worthy of support as the best one could expect from the Barack Obama White House. But no more.
Thanks to the work of the Center for Security Policy Director Frank Gaffney and the writing of Andrew McCarthy of the National Review Institute, there has emerged a compelling reason to vote against Kagan's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice: Her support for Shariah Law while she was dean of the Harvard Law School.
Islamists are seeking to spread Shariah law by inducing American and European financial institutions to establish Shariah Compliant Funds in which their clients can invest. These funds follow the prescriptions of Shariah law in their investments. They routinely collect 2.5 percent of the principal of any investment annually for donation to charitable institutions, fine recipients of their investment 7 percent for transgressions of Shariah law (and donate the fine to charity) and only invest in projects compliant with the rules of Shariah.
Unfortunately, the decisions as to which investments are compliant and which charities receive their benefice are made by Shariah Compliance Boards appointed by the financial institution, which typically include radical Muslim extremists who routinely designate terrorist-linked entities to receive their charitable donations and also proscribe investment in any firm engaged in U.S. defense contracting on the ground that the contract could aid Israel.
Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.
At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."
Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.
Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.
For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Should Christians respect Obama?
This guy was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading.
Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the
Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President !
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his
beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran ..
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs !
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to
bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech !
Unite behind Obama? Never ! ! !
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his
Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country ! ! Any more compromise is more defeat !
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country ! ! !
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe.
"In GOD We Trus
This guy was on Dr. Charles Stanley's program "In Touch" as a guest speaker. I almost shouted "HALLELUJAH" when I finished reading.
Forward or discard....it's your choice.
Dr. David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the
Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama !
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President !
Why am I doing this ?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American Citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his
beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran ..
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is Right !
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs !
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant !
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years !
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country !
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society !
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to
bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code !
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech !
Unite behind Obama? Never ! ! !
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his
Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his "goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country ! ! Any more compromise is more defeat !
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country ! ! !
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe.
"In GOD We Trus
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Pushing Perry
If you would please forgive the workingrepublican for talking about local politics. People talk conservative. Jeff Perry is a man who walks the walk. Jeff in running for Congress from the !0th District in MA. In 2006 in MA most Republicans worshipped the ground that Mitt Romney walked on. Governor Romney wanted universal heath care in the state so he could be President in 2008. Rep. Perry voted against the Governor on principle.
Jeff was against forcing people to buy health care, When it wasn't cool to be against forcing people to by health care. Jeff was going rogue before Sarah Palin was a household name. He was one of two Representatives (truly) Republicans to vote against Mittcare in MA. Mr. Perry has voted with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will do the same in Washington with the US Constitution. If you want to take the Constitution back as the founding document of this country send Perry to Washington. The Constitution and NOT Mao's little RED book are the basis for governing this republic.
In the last few days I have received two pieces of negative mail from Joe Malone's campaign. Today mail was on Mr Perry's education. Jeff has been a teacher at Bridgewater State collage. It would seem to be reasonable that the adminsitaion at Bridgewater State would have checked the education credentials of a teacher before putting them on staff.
http://jeffperryforcongress.com
Jeff was against forcing people to buy health care, When it wasn't cool to be against forcing people to by health care. Jeff was going rogue before Sarah Palin was a household name. He was one of two Representatives (truly) Republicans to vote against Mittcare in MA. Mr. Perry has voted with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will do the same in Washington with the US Constitution. If you want to take the Constitution back as the founding document of this country send Perry to Washington. The Constitution and NOT Mao's little RED book are the basis for governing this republic.
In the last few days I have received two pieces of negative mail from Joe Malone's campaign. Today mail was on Mr Perry's education. Jeff has been a teacher at Bridgewater State collage. It would seem to be reasonable that the adminsitaion at Bridgewater State would have checked the education credentials of a teacher before putting them on staff.
http://jeffperryforcongress.com
Monday, May 31, 2010
Know Maurice Strong Know Pres.Obama
Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future!
By Henry Lamb
January, 1997
Shortly after his selection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling, world-wide U.N. bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on January 17, 1997, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.
Strong's appointment as Senior Advisor, "to assist planning and executing a far-reaching reform of the world body," is seen by U.N. watchers to be a masterful strategic maneuver to avoid political opposition while empowering Strong to implement a global agenda he has been developing for years. More than 100 developing nations coordinated a "Draft Strong" movement in 1995 to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali. But Strong's name was never presented publicly as a candidate. His appointment avoids the public scrutiny and the possibility of a veto. As a Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong will have a free hand to do what he wants while Annan takes the heat - or the praise. Strong prefers to operate in the background. He, perhaps more than any other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being implemented throughout the world. Although various components of the global agenda are associated with an assortment of individuals and institutions, Maurice Strong is, or has been, the driving force behind them. It is essential that Americans come to know this man who has been entrusted with the task of "reforming" the U.N. - this man Maurice F. Strong.
According to Elaine Dewar, author of Cloak of Green. Strong is a Socialist. He was born into a family who worked to get out the vote for Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who in 1943 was promoting the National Council for Soviet-Canadian Friendship. Strong's cousin, Anna Louise Strong, was a Marxist, and a member of the Comintern, who spent two years with Mao and Chou En-lai. Her burial in China in 1970 was organized personally by Chou En-lai. Maurice is well received in China, partly because of his cousin's connections.[1]
Strong is also closely aligned with Mikhail Gorbachev and was a participant in Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco in 1995.[2] His organization, Earth Council, and Gorbachev's organization, Green Cross International, are currently developing a new "Earth Charter" for presentation to the U.N. General Assembly and ratification by all U.N. members before the year 2000. He served on the Brundtland Commission, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then-Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Strong's love for socialist ideas is scattered throughout his professional life - as they apply to everyone else. For himself, he is quite the capitalist.
He ran away from home at 14. His father retrieved him from Vancouver. But in 1945, after completing the 11th grade, Strong was off again to become an apprentice fur trader in Hudson Bay. Strong's business success was remarkable. At 19, he was an investment analyst. At 25, he was Vice President of Dome Petroleum. At 31, he became the President of Power Corporation of Canada. He headed both Petro Canada and Hydro Canada, and made a few deals on the side as well, one of which was the acquisition in 1978 of the Colorado Land & Cattle Company which owned 200,000 acres of San Luis Valley in Colorado -- from Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.[3]
The ranch, called Baca, sat on the continent's largest fresh water aquifer. Strong intended to pipe the water to the desert southwest, but environmental organizations protested and the plan was abandoned. Strong ended up with a $1.2 million settlement from the water company, an annual grant of $100,000 from Laurance Rockefeller, and still retained the rights to the water.
Strong's success in business was exceeded only by his success in government. From his post as founding director of the Canadian International Development Assistance Program (CIDA), he was elevated by Prime Minister Lester Pearson to represent Canada's interests in international affairs.
Strong's first exposure to the U.N. came in 1947 when, at 18, he went to New York to take a job as assistant pass officer in the Identification Unit of the Security Section. He lived with Noah Monod, then treasurer of the U.N.. Here, he first met David Rockefeller and learned that the U.N.'s funds were handled by Rockefeller's Chase Bank. He also met the other Rockefeller brothers and other influential people as well.
The idea of global governance emerged during this era. John J. McCloy was a member of the law firm that represented the Rockefeller's business interests. McCloy helped set up the World Bank and became its first president. He also became an assistant to Roosevelt's secretary of war, Henry Stimson. McCloy had been with Truman, Andrei Gromyko and Stalin at Potsdam in 1945, and it was McCloy who first received word that the atomic bomb test at Almagordo had been successful. He was appointed to a presidential commission to respond to a Soviet proposal that the United Nations control future development of atomic power. McCloy recommended that the U.S. turn over all information about the atomic bomb, including where to find uranium, to the U.N.. This idea of allowing the U.N. to become a supranational agency was also promoted by the Rockefellers and the Rockefeller-funded Council on Foreign Relations.[4]
Although Strong kept his U.N. job only two months, he met very influential people through Noah Monod who would later prove to be very useful. Strong returned to Winnipeg, failed to qualify for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and took a job as trainee analyst for James Richardson and Sons. By 1951, he had taken a job with Dome Petroleum, on whose board of directors was Henrie Brunie, a close friend of John J. McCloy. Dome became one of the largest oil companies in Canada but its shareholders resided on Wall Street, never very far away from Standard Oil and the Rockefellers.
In 1951 Strong married, and in 1952, abruptly sold his home, quit his job and took a world cruise. He wound up in Nairobi and took a job with CalTex, a company formed to exploit Saudi oil. His job involved travel to exotic parts of the world for two years. Strong visited his distant cousin, Robbins Strong, in Geneva, who was the Secretary of the Extension and Intermovement Aid Division of the international YMCA. He met Leonard Hentsch whose Swiss bank handled the money of the YMCA. Strong wanted to become an international ambassador for the YMCA, but settled for a position on the International Committee of the U.S.A. and Canada which raised funds for the YMCA.
This experience may have been the genesis of Strong's realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government. In 1959, Strong created his own company, MF Strong Management. While serving as executive vice-president of Canada's Power Corporation, he also ran his own company, Alberta gas company, another company called Ajax, and elevated his role in the international YMCA and Canada's Liberal Party. He told Elaine Dewar, "We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets. We influenced a lot of appointments.... Politicians got to know you and you them."[5]
While Strong was expanding his influence in the business world and in Canadian politics, his friend, John J. McCloy became entrenched in the Kennedy administration as the head of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. McCloy continued to promote the idea of turning all defense over to the U.N. through his Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provision of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Publication 4, General Series 3, May 3, 1962).
By 1966, Strong had moved up again in government. He became Director General of Canada's External Aid. He also became President of Canada's YMCA. Strong's primary job was to deliver the foreign aid promised by Lester Pearson's government. Rather than hire a staff, Strong contracted with a Quebec-based engineering firm called SNC-Lavalin, to supply "technical facilities" with the proviso that the firm would hire only those individuals approved by Strong. External Aid was transformed from a one-man operation to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in 1968, which Strong headed. His mentor, Lester Pearson, created another institution called the International Development Research Center (IDRC). The IDRC was a quasi-government agency that had unique authority to receive charitable donations -- and issue tax deductible certificates -- and give money directly to individuals, governments, and private organizations. Strong became its head in 1970.
Through his creation and direction of CIDA, Strong controlled the implementation of aid programs on the ground -- including who was hired to do the work, and through the newly created IDRC, Strong controlled the issuance of tax deductible certificates and the distrubution of both private foundation money as well as government money. He was in the perfect position to make many friends around the world. Dewar describes the arrangement this way: "He had helped create a federally funded but semi-private intelligence/influence network that could have impacts both in Canada and abroad."[6]
Strong was chosen to direct Earth Summit I, in Stockholm in 1972, not for his demonstrated interest in the environment, but because the Swedish representative to the U.N. believed that only Strong, with his extensive worldwide network of friends, could get both the developed and developing nations to participate. Strong was very busy when asked to organize the conference. He was recruiting people for Trudeau's new government, and he was managing his private investments which included real estate holdings in a company consisting of two former Canadian officials and himself. He also took a position as trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation which supplied a grant for the running of the Stockholm Conference office. He was also given the writing services of Barbara Ward and of the French ecologist Rene Dubos, who worked for the Rockefeller Foundation.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment (Earth Summit I) had far more international significance than was ever reported. NGO's (non-government organizations) were funded by the Canadian government to attend the conference to give the appearance of participation by the general public. Of course, only those NGOs personally selected by Strong received funding. One such NGO was headed by William Turner, Strong's protege who then headed the Power Corporation which Strong once headed. Strong also personally softened the Chinese to Nixon's initiatives. Strong visited China to persuade them to participate in the Stockholm Conference; the Chinese had not appeared at any U.N. function since the 1949 revolution. The Chinese took Strong to visit the grave of his cousin, Anna Louise Strong. Nixon named Henry Kissinger, who came from the Council on Foreign Relations, as his Security Advisor, and his first assignment was to open secret discussions with China. The Rockefellers gave Kissinger a $50,000 bonus when he went to work for Nixon.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference institutionalized the environment as a legitimate concern of government, and it institutionalized NGOs as the instruments through which government could varnish its agenda with the appearance of public support. The primary outcome of the conference was a recommendation to create the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which became a reality in 1973 with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director. Not surprisingly, Nairobi, Strong's headquarters twenty-years earlier, was chosen for the permanent headquarters of the UNEP.
After establishing UNEP and setting its agenda, Strong returned to Canada where he resumed chairmanship of both Petro-Canada and the IDRC. He was introduced to Scott Spangler, who ran a Texas company called ProChemCo. Strong's partnership, Stronat, bought ProChemCo, and changed the name to Procor, which immediately entered into a complex $10 million deal to acquire AZL, also known as the Arizona-Colorado Land and Cattle Company. AZL's major stockholder was Adnan Khashoggi. In the end, AZL acquired Procor, but Strong landed in control of the conglomerate which owned feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, engineering firms, and 200,000 acres which included the Baca ranch in Colorado. Amid this multi-national deal making, Strong became a Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a post he held until 1981.
In 1983, Strong was appointed to the U.N.'s World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Strong also had a colleague appointed as Executive Director, Warren "Chip" Lindner, an American lawyer, based in Geneva who had handled an intricate merger for Strong and who later went to work for the World Wildlife Fund in Gland, Switzerland. Strong, and the World Wildlife Fund, were largely responsible for the content of the Brundtland Commission's final report, Our Common Future. Before the report was released, Strong was looking to the future.
At a luncheon with Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson in 1986, Strong proposed another world conference on the environment to be held on the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference. Both Sweden and Canada wanted to host the event, but Strong's visit to Collor de Mello, prospective Brazilian President, convinced Strong that the event should be held in Rio de Janeiro. Dewar says: "I was beginning to understand that the Rio Summit was part of a Rockefeller-envisioned Global Governance Agenda that dated back before World War II...."
As Strong organized the Rio Conference, he utilized his vast network to ensure the outcome. His office bought Bella Abzug's airplane tickets to attend a preparatory meeting in Geneva. He asked her to schedule a special conference in Miami for women through her recently formed NGO called Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO). Another NGO formed by Abzug in 1981, the Women's USA Fund, had been almost dormant until 1991, when the NGO received nearly $1 million. He arranged for the creation of the Business Council on Sustainable Development. Strong's long-time colleague, and former cabinet minister to Pierre Trudeau, J. Hugh Faulkner, was asked to leave his post as Executive Director of the International Chamber of Commerce to take charge of the new organization. The new organization was immediately accredited to the Rio Conference and designated to advise Strong who "needed people with their feet on the ground to do a reality check on these U.N. guys." The Canadian Participatory Committee for UNCED (CPCU) was entirely funded by the Canadian government and consisted of carefully selected individuals who represented various NGOs.
The practice started by Strong at the 1972 conference, of cloaking the agenda in the perception of public grassroots support from NGOs, culminated in Rio in 1992, with the largest collection of NGOs ever assembled in support of Agenda 21. Only those NGOs that were "accredited" by the U.N. Conference were permitted to attend. And only those which had demonstrated support for the agenda were funded. Dewar calls these NGOs -- PGOs -- Private Government Organizations.
Strong has influence with the major Foundations which provide the funding for NGOs and he has influence with the major international NGOs that coordinate the activities of the thousands of smaller NGOs around the world. Strong has served, or is currently on the Board of Directors of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI); the three international NGOs that have developed and advanced the global agenda since the early 1970s.
Strong also served on the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, co-chaired by Ingvar Carlsson, and Shirdath Ramphal, former President of the IUCN. The Commission's final report, Our Global Neighborhood, sets forth detailed plans to achieve what is called "Global Governance." In his new position as Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong is again well positioned to implement the agenda he has been developing by calling its implementation "reform." Undoubtedly, Strong's NGO network, funded by Foundations and governments tied to Strong's worldwide interests, will be used to promote the agenda at the national level and at the U.N. level.
One of the first steps likely to be taken will be a recommendation to dissolve the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This cumbersome body is one of five original organs of the U.N. designated to oversee economic and social programs. Activities in these areas have expanded to the extent that programs such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Program, and several others, now have their own budgets, staff, and independent headquarters facilities. ECOSOC has become a useless layer of bureaucracy. Strong will be praised for eliminating this waste.
In reality, the move will simply pave the way to strengthen the U.N.'s power and will actually result in more expense. The functions of ECOSOC will be divided between a newly created Economic Security Council, and a reorganized Trusteeship Council. In other words, we will praise the publicly touted "reform" of eliminating one U.N. agency, but probably never even be told of the new activities of two new councils. This projection is based upon published recommendations of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance -- of which Maurice Strong was a member. The implementation of this "reform" will require an amendment to the U.N. Charter.
The G-77 nations, which represent 135 of the 185 member nations of the U.N. held a conference in Costa Rica in January [7] to outline amendments to Article 13 of the U.N. Charter which will be necessary to bring about global governance as described in Our Global Neighborhood. Costa Rica is the international headquarters of Strong's most recent NGO, Earth Council, and the U.N. University, where a portion of the conference was held. Among the other recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance is the elimination of the veto power of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and a review of the entire concept of permanent member status in ten years. Another recommendation would make decisions of the International Court of Justice binding on all nations. Still another would create an International Criminal Court, and a U.N. standing army, and another would provide for independent finance in the form of various global taxation schemes.
Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition. He is now in a position to implement them. His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
"This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."
He told the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."[8]
Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. Through his published writings and public presentations he has declared his desire to empower the U.N. as the global authority to manage a new era of global governance. He has positioned his NGO triumvirite, the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, to varnish U.N. activity with the perception of "civil society" respectability. And now he has been appointed Senior Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General and assigned the responsibility of reforming the United Nations bureaucracy. The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green (Toronto, Ontario: Lorimar & Co., 1995), p. 254.
2. The Gorbachev Foundation/USA, "Revisioning Global Priorities," Program Brochure, March 2, 1995. (On file)
3. Marci McDonald, Maclean's, October 10, 1994, p. 51.
4. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 263.
5. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 270.
6. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 274.
7. Robert Pease, "A Chance To Save the United Nations," Cape Cod Times, December 30, 1996.
8. Maurice Strong, "Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation." (On file)
v
By Henry Lamb
January, 1997
Shortly after his selection as U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan told the Lehrer News Hour that Ingvar Carlsson and Shirdath Ramphal, co-chairs of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, would be among those asked to help him reform the sprawling, world-wide U.N. bureaucracy. His first choice, however, announced in the Washington Post on January 17, 1997, was none other than Maurice Strong, also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.
Strong's appointment as Senior Advisor, "to assist planning and executing a far-reaching reform of the world body," is seen by U.N. watchers to be a masterful strategic maneuver to avoid political opposition while empowering Strong to implement a global agenda he has been developing for years. More than 100 developing nations coordinated a "Draft Strong" movement in 1995 to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali. But Strong's name was never presented publicly as a candidate. His appointment avoids the public scrutiny and the possibility of a veto. As a Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong will have a free hand to do what he wants while Annan takes the heat - or the praise. Strong prefers to operate in the background. He, perhaps more than any other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being implemented throughout the world. Although various components of the global agenda are associated with an assortment of individuals and institutions, Maurice Strong is, or has been, the driving force behind them. It is essential that Americans come to know this man who has been entrusted with the task of "reforming" the U.N. - this man Maurice F. Strong.
According to Elaine Dewar, author of Cloak of Green. Strong is a Socialist. He was born into a family who worked to get out the vote for Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who in 1943 was promoting the National Council for Soviet-Canadian Friendship. Strong's cousin, Anna Louise Strong, was a Marxist, and a member of the Comintern, who spent two years with Mao and Chou En-lai. Her burial in China in 1970 was organized personally by Chou En-lai. Maurice is well received in China, partly because of his cousin's connections.[1]
Strong is also closely aligned with Mikhail Gorbachev and was a participant in Gorbachev's State of the World Forum in San Francisco in 1995.[2] His organization, Earth Council, and Gorbachev's organization, Green Cross International, are currently developing a new "Earth Charter" for presentation to the U.N. General Assembly and ratification by all U.N. members before the year 2000. He served on the Brundtland Commission, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, then-Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Strong's love for socialist ideas is scattered throughout his professional life - as they apply to everyone else. For himself, he is quite the capitalist.
He ran away from home at 14. His father retrieved him from Vancouver. But in 1945, after completing the 11th grade, Strong was off again to become an apprentice fur trader in Hudson Bay. Strong's business success was remarkable. At 19, he was an investment analyst. At 25, he was Vice President of Dome Petroleum. At 31, he became the President of Power Corporation of Canada. He headed both Petro Canada and Hydro Canada, and made a few deals on the side as well, one of which was the acquisition in 1978 of the Colorado Land & Cattle Company which owned 200,000 acres of San Luis Valley in Colorado -- from Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.[3]
The ranch, called Baca, sat on the continent's largest fresh water aquifer. Strong intended to pipe the water to the desert southwest, but environmental organizations protested and the plan was abandoned. Strong ended up with a $1.2 million settlement from the water company, an annual grant of $100,000 from Laurance Rockefeller, and still retained the rights to the water.
Strong's success in business was exceeded only by his success in government. From his post as founding director of the Canadian International Development Assistance Program (CIDA), he was elevated by Prime Minister Lester Pearson to represent Canada's interests in international affairs.
Strong's first exposure to the U.N. came in 1947 when, at 18, he went to New York to take a job as assistant pass officer in the Identification Unit of the Security Section. He lived with Noah Monod, then treasurer of the U.N.. Here, he first met David Rockefeller and learned that the U.N.'s funds were handled by Rockefeller's Chase Bank. He also met the other Rockefeller brothers and other influential people as well.
The idea of global governance emerged during this era. John J. McCloy was a member of the law firm that represented the Rockefeller's business interests. McCloy helped set up the World Bank and became its first president. He also became an assistant to Roosevelt's secretary of war, Henry Stimson. McCloy had been with Truman, Andrei Gromyko and Stalin at Potsdam in 1945, and it was McCloy who first received word that the atomic bomb test at Almagordo had been successful. He was appointed to a presidential commission to respond to a Soviet proposal that the United Nations control future development of atomic power. McCloy recommended that the U.S. turn over all information about the atomic bomb, including where to find uranium, to the U.N.. This idea of allowing the U.N. to become a supranational agency was also promoted by the Rockefellers and the Rockefeller-funded Council on Foreign Relations.[4]
Although Strong kept his U.N. job only two months, he met very influential people through Noah Monod who would later prove to be very useful. Strong returned to Winnipeg, failed to qualify for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and took a job as trainee analyst for James Richardson and Sons. By 1951, he had taken a job with Dome Petroleum, on whose board of directors was Henrie Brunie, a close friend of John J. McCloy. Dome became one of the largest oil companies in Canada but its shareholders resided on Wall Street, never very far away from Standard Oil and the Rockefellers.
In 1951 Strong married, and in 1952, abruptly sold his home, quit his job and took a world cruise. He wound up in Nairobi and took a job with CalTex, a company formed to exploit Saudi oil. His job involved travel to exotic parts of the world for two years. Strong visited his distant cousin, Robbins Strong, in Geneva, who was the Secretary of the Extension and Intermovement Aid Division of the international YMCA. He met Leonard Hentsch whose Swiss bank handled the money of the YMCA. Strong wanted to become an international ambassador for the YMCA, but settled for a position on the International Committee of the U.S.A. and Canada which raised funds for the YMCA.
This experience may have been the genesis of Strong's realization that NGOs (non-government organizations) provide an excellent way to use NGOs to couple the money from philanthropists and business with the objectives of government. In 1959, Strong created his own company, MF Strong Management. While serving as executive vice-president of Canada's Power Corporation, he also ran his own company, Alberta gas company, another company called Ajax, and elevated his role in the international YMCA and Canada's Liberal Party. He told Elaine Dewar, "We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets. We influenced a lot of appointments.... Politicians got to know you and you them."[5]
While Strong was expanding his influence in the business world and in Canadian politics, his friend, John J. McCloy became entrenched in the Kennedy administration as the head of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. McCloy continued to promote the idea of turning all defense over to the U.N. through his Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provision of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Publication 4, General Series 3, May 3, 1962).
By 1966, Strong had moved up again in government. He became Director General of Canada's External Aid. He also became President of Canada's YMCA. Strong's primary job was to deliver the foreign aid promised by Lester Pearson's government. Rather than hire a staff, Strong contracted with a Quebec-based engineering firm called SNC-Lavalin, to supply "technical facilities" with the proviso that the firm would hire only those individuals approved by Strong. External Aid was transformed from a one-man operation to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in 1968, which Strong headed. His mentor, Lester Pearson, created another institution called the International Development Research Center (IDRC). The IDRC was a quasi-government agency that had unique authority to receive charitable donations -- and issue tax deductible certificates -- and give money directly to individuals, governments, and private organizations. Strong became its head in 1970.
Through his creation and direction of CIDA, Strong controlled the implementation of aid programs on the ground -- including who was hired to do the work, and through the newly created IDRC, Strong controlled the issuance of tax deductible certificates and the distrubution of both private foundation money as well as government money. He was in the perfect position to make many friends around the world. Dewar describes the arrangement this way: "He had helped create a federally funded but semi-private intelligence/influence network that could have impacts both in Canada and abroad."[6]
Strong was chosen to direct Earth Summit I, in Stockholm in 1972, not for his demonstrated interest in the environment, but because the Swedish representative to the U.N. believed that only Strong, with his extensive worldwide network of friends, could get both the developed and developing nations to participate. Strong was very busy when asked to organize the conference. He was recruiting people for Trudeau's new government, and he was managing his private investments which included real estate holdings in a company consisting of two former Canadian officials and himself. He also took a position as trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation which supplied a grant for the running of the Stockholm Conference office. He was also given the writing services of Barbara Ward and of the French ecologist Rene Dubos, who worked for the Rockefeller Foundation.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference on Human Environment (Earth Summit I) had far more international significance than was ever reported. NGO's (non-government organizations) were funded by the Canadian government to attend the conference to give the appearance of participation by the general public. Of course, only those NGOs personally selected by Strong received funding. One such NGO was headed by William Turner, Strong's protege who then headed the Power Corporation which Strong once headed. Strong also personally softened the Chinese to Nixon's initiatives. Strong visited China to persuade them to participate in the Stockholm Conference; the Chinese had not appeared at any U.N. function since the 1949 revolution. The Chinese took Strong to visit the grave of his cousin, Anna Louise Strong. Nixon named Henry Kissinger, who came from the Council on Foreign Relations, as his Security Advisor, and his first assignment was to open secret discussions with China. The Rockefellers gave Kissinger a $50,000 bonus when he went to work for Nixon.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference institutionalized the environment as a legitimate concern of government, and it institutionalized NGOs as the instruments through which government could varnish its agenda with the appearance of public support. The primary outcome of the conference was a recommendation to create the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which became a reality in 1973 with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director. Not surprisingly, Nairobi, Strong's headquarters twenty-years earlier, was chosen for the permanent headquarters of the UNEP.
After establishing UNEP and setting its agenda, Strong returned to Canada where he resumed chairmanship of both Petro-Canada and the IDRC. He was introduced to Scott Spangler, who ran a Texas company called ProChemCo. Strong's partnership, Stronat, bought ProChemCo, and changed the name to Procor, which immediately entered into a complex $10 million deal to acquire AZL, also known as the Arizona-Colorado Land and Cattle Company. AZL's major stockholder was Adnan Khashoggi. In the end, AZL acquired Procor, but Strong landed in control of the conglomerate which owned feed lots, land, gas and oil interests, engineering firms, and 200,000 acres which included the Baca ranch in Colorado. Amid this multi-national deal making, Strong became a Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a post he held until 1981.
In 1983, Strong was appointed to the U.N.'s World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Strong also had a colleague appointed as Executive Director, Warren "Chip" Lindner, an American lawyer, based in Geneva who had handled an intricate merger for Strong and who later went to work for the World Wildlife Fund in Gland, Switzerland. Strong, and the World Wildlife Fund, were largely responsible for the content of the Brundtland Commission's final report, Our Common Future. Before the report was released, Strong was looking to the future.
At a luncheon with Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson in 1986, Strong proposed another world conference on the environment to be held on the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference. Both Sweden and Canada wanted to host the event, but Strong's visit to Collor de Mello, prospective Brazilian President, convinced Strong that the event should be held in Rio de Janeiro. Dewar says: "I was beginning to understand that the Rio Summit was part of a Rockefeller-envisioned Global Governance Agenda that dated back before World War II...."
As Strong organized the Rio Conference, he utilized his vast network to ensure the outcome. His office bought Bella Abzug's airplane tickets to attend a preparatory meeting in Geneva. He asked her to schedule a special conference in Miami for women through her recently formed NGO called Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO). Another NGO formed by Abzug in 1981, the Women's USA Fund, had been almost dormant until 1991, when the NGO received nearly $1 million. He arranged for the creation of the Business Council on Sustainable Development. Strong's long-time colleague, and former cabinet minister to Pierre Trudeau, J. Hugh Faulkner, was asked to leave his post as Executive Director of the International Chamber of Commerce to take charge of the new organization. The new organization was immediately accredited to the Rio Conference and designated to advise Strong who "needed people with their feet on the ground to do a reality check on these U.N. guys." The Canadian Participatory Committee for UNCED (CPCU) was entirely funded by the Canadian government and consisted of carefully selected individuals who represented various NGOs.
The practice started by Strong at the 1972 conference, of cloaking the agenda in the perception of public grassroots support from NGOs, culminated in Rio in 1992, with the largest collection of NGOs ever assembled in support of Agenda 21. Only those NGOs that were "accredited" by the U.N. Conference were permitted to attend. And only those which had demonstrated support for the agenda were funded. Dewar calls these NGOs -- PGOs -- Private Government Organizations.
Strong has influence with the major Foundations which provide the funding for NGOs and he has influence with the major international NGOs that coordinate the activities of the thousands of smaller NGOs around the world. Strong has served, or is currently on the Board of Directors of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI); the three international NGOs that have developed and advanced the global agenda since the early 1970s.
Strong also served on the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance, co-chaired by Ingvar Carlsson, and Shirdath Ramphal, former President of the IUCN. The Commission's final report, Our Global Neighborhood, sets forth detailed plans to achieve what is called "Global Governance." In his new position as Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan, Strong is again well positioned to implement the agenda he has been developing by calling its implementation "reform." Undoubtedly, Strong's NGO network, funded by Foundations and governments tied to Strong's worldwide interests, will be used to promote the agenda at the national level and at the U.N. level.
One of the first steps likely to be taken will be a recommendation to dissolve the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This cumbersome body is one of five original organs of the U.N. designated to oversee economic and social programs. Activities in these areas have expanded to the extent that programs such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Program, and several others, now have their own budgets, staff, and independent headquarters facilities. ECOSOC has become a useless layer of bureaucracy. Strong will be praised for eliminating this waste.
In reality, the move will simply pave the way to strengthen the U.N.'s power and will actually result in more expense. The functions of ECOSOC will be divided between a newly created Economic Security Council, and a reorganized Trusteeship Council. In other words, we will praise the publicly touted "reform" of eliminating one U.N. agency, but probably never even be told of the new activities of two new councils. This projection is based upon published recommendations of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance -- of which Maurice Strong was a member. The implementation of this "reform" will require an amendment to the U.N. Charter.
The G-77 nations, which represent 135 of the 185 member nations of the U.N. held a conference in Costa Rica in January [7] to outline amendments to Article 13 of the U.N. Charter which will be necessary to bring about global governance as described in Our Global Neighborhood. Costa Rica is the international headquarters of Strong's most recent NGO, Earth Council, and the U.N. University, where a portion of the conference was held. Among the other recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance is the elimination of the veto power of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and a review of the entire concept of permanent member status in ten years. Another recommendation would make decisions of the International Court of Justice binding on all nations. Still another would create an International Criminal Court, and a U.N. standing army, and another would provide for independent finance in the form of various global taxation schemes.
Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition. He is now in a position to implement them. His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
"This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."
He told the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."[8]
Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. Through his published writings and public presentations he has declared his desire to empower the U.N. as the global authority to manage a new era of global governance. He has positioned his NGO triumvirite, the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, to varnish U.N. activity with the perception of "civil society" respectability. And now he has been appointed Senior Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General and assigned the responsibility of reforming the United Nations bureaucracy. The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green (Toronto, Ontario: Lorimar & Co., 1995), p. 254.
2. The Gorbachev Foundation/USA, "Revisioning Global Priorities," Program Brochure, March 2, 1995. (On file)
3. Marci McDonald, Maclean's, October 10, 1994, p. 51.
4. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 263.
5. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 270.
6. Elaine Dewar, Op Cit., p. 274.
7. Robert Pease, "A Chance To Save the United Nations," Cape Cod Times, December 30, 1996.
8. Maurice Strong, "Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation." (On file)
v
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Slippery B.Hussuin Obama
The Obama administration gave safely award to the BP oil platform days before it blew up and sank. How does a drilling rig sink after getting a safety award? The award given because the largest political gift to the Obama campaign by BP.
We are told by BHO that there was not a enough pre-positioning of federal assets to control the spill. His people were dividing they time between porn on line and planning for an off shore drilling accident. Instead of watching wet naked women on their computers they should have been working on oily water coming from the Gulf The Minerals Management Service's was NOT doing enviormental studies on individual oil rigs. The MMS examation to the BP rig for envoirmental reasons.
President Obama blamed the last ten years of a culture of corruption in the MMS for the reason his people were not doing their job. You guest it it was Bush fault for the split in the Gulf of Mexico.One and a half years after GW Bush left Washington all problems are Bush's fault.
We are told by BHO that there was not a enough pre-positioning of federal assets to control the spill. His people were dividing they time between porn on line and planning for an off shore drilling accident. Instead of watching wet naked women on their computers they should have been working on oily water coming from the Gulf The Minerals Management Service's was NOT doing enviormental studies on individual oil rigs. The MMS examation to the BP rig for envoirmental reasons.
President Obama blamed the last ten years of a culture of corruption in the MMS for the reason his people were not doing their job. You guest it it was Bush fault for the split in the Gulf of Mexico.One and a half years after GW Bush left Washington all problems are Bush's fault.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Kanning Kagen for US Supreme Court
In her words "Ever since Werner Sombart first posed the question in 1905, countless historians have tired to explain why there is no socialism in America. For the most part, this work focused on external factors--on features of American society rather than of American socialist movements" Ms. Kagen's 1981 Senior Thesis at Princeton University. What is relevant about Werner Somart speaking in 1905 and a student writing her senior paper in 1981. Werner Sombart was a German economist and sociologist, the head of the "Youngest Historical School" and one of the leading Continental European social scientist during the first quarter of the 20th century. Sombart lead the school toward a socialist economics model. "A leading member of the last generation of German Historical School, Werner Sombart nonetheless drew the Historical school away from the conservative and normative weight of the Schmoller group. His early Marxian writings (1894, 1896, 1902) - which include two laudatory studies of its founders (1895, 1909) - did much to disengage it from that heritage"
We can conclude from this Kagen embraces a socialist ecomonic model. If a case of government nationalizing an industry Kagen will vote with the government to nationalize. Ms Kagen will be voting on the court for about forty years if the nomination goes through. Forty years of socialist votes NOT liberal.
Another reason to be against the nomination is that one Black scholar, Dr.Boyce Watkins doesn't want to have Elena Kagen on the highest court in the United States of America.-" Kagan didn't hire one single African American professor while serving as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, my friends, that's racist. Given all the racism in academia (black professors are always passed over for positions for which they are qualified, since the elitism of academia is very Jim Crow-like in nature), it is quite telling that President Obama would be willing to nominate someone who has shown a clear bias against hiring people of color. Ethnic diversity was clearly at the bottom of the Kagan priority list, since you can't convince me that Harvard University isn't receiving scores of applications from top black attorneys and law professors from throughout the nation. According to Duke University Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles, Kagan had 29 hires during her tenure, and none of them were black, Latino or Native American (28 were white and one was Asian). So we can either believe, as Kagan appears to think, that there is no black person on earth qualified to be hired at Harvard Law School or that she sat idly and allowed a racially discriminatory set of hiring practices steal opportunities from promising young legal minds. Given that only Harvard and Yale grads need apply for the Supreme Court under Obama, Kagan (like Thomas) will gladly accept the benefits of affirmative action, and then pull the ladder up behind her. As a black man, it does me no good to support the idea of having yet another Harvard-educated liberal on the Supreme Court who seems to think that black and brown people are second-class citizens. I've seen enough of that." Dr. Watkins said this in his article in the Black Voice
Call your US Senator, PLEASE
We can conclude from this Kagen embraces a socialist ecomonic model. If a case of government nationalizing an industry Kagen will vote with the government to nationalize. Ms Kagen will be voting on the court for about forty years if the nomination goes through. Forty years of socialist votes NOT liberal.
Another reason to be against the nomination is that one Black scholar, Dr.Boyce Watkins doesn't want to have Elena Kagen on the highest court in the United States of America.-" Kagan didn't hire one single African American professor while serving as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, my friends, that's racist. Given all the racism in academia (black professors are always passed over for positions for which they are qualified, since the elitism of academia is very Jim Crow-like in nature), it is quite telling that President Obama would be willing to nominate someone who has shown a clear bias against hiring people of color. Ethnic diversity was clearly at the bottom of the Kagan priority list, since you can't convince me that Harvard University isn't receiving scores of applications from top black attorneys and law professors from throughout the nation. According to Duke University Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles, Kagan had 29 hires during her tenure, and none of them were black, Latino or Native American (28 were white and one was Asian). So we can either believe, as Kagan appears to think, that there is no black person on earth qualified to be hired at Harvard Law School or that she sat idly and allowed a racially discriminatory set of hiring practices steal opportunities from promising young legal minds. Given that only Harvard and Yale grads need apply for the Supreme Court under Obama, Kagan (like Thomas) will gladly accept the benefits of affirmative action, and then pull the ladder up behind her. As a black man, it does me no good to support the idea of having yet another Harvard-educated liberal on the Supreme Court who seems to think that black and brown people are second-class citizens. I've seen enough of that." Dr. Watkins said this in his article in the Black Voice
Call your US Senator, PLEASE
Monday, May 17, 2010
Elena Kegan's Socialist Thesis
Politics
Lee Ross
Supreme Court
0
comments Lee Ross wrote this for Fox News Snap Shot
Elena Kagan’s Socialist Thesis
May 17, 2010 - 5:18 PM
by: Lee Ross A 134 page thesis detailing the rise and fall of the American socialist movement is hardly a light read, nor must it have been an easy paper for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to write as a Princeton undergrad in 1981. Yet Kagan produced "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933" as her senior thesis, in the hope, as she wrote, "of clarifying [her] own political ideals."
Unfortunately for politicos intent on discovering more about those ideals, whatever conclusions Kagan reached about her own ideology based on her study of the socialist movement are largely omitted from her final product. In what has become a common description of Kagan, she, even as an undergraduate, displays uncommon intellect but leaves the reader with little understanding of her own deeply-held views.
The research paper was a graduation requirement for Princeton students, who were able to select their own thesis topic. Kagan dedicated the work to her parents, now deceased, and expressed appreciation to her brother Marc, whose participation in radical causes, Kagan says, in part led her to pursue the topic.
The premise of her paper, dated April 15, 1981, is that previously written accounts of the American Socialist Party largely missed the main cause of the party's dissolution in the years following World War I. "Historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism's failure," Kagan wrote.
Internal dissention, Kagan argued, was the root of the party's failure to become a significant political force. Her paper examined the dynamics of the Socialist Party's New York chapter, then the largest in the country.
Though Kagan acknowledged the minimal impact the Socialist Party had on electoral politics a century ago, she maintained the influence of the movement exceeded its electoral performance. "It would be absurd to over-estimate the strength of the early twentieth century socialist movement," she wrote, citing the party's presidential favorite, Eugene V. Debs, who never won a single electoral vote in his five bids for the presidency and never earned more than a million popular votes.
Nonetheless, Kagan contends, "[T]he specter of socialism haunted Americans to a far greater extent than the SP's [Socialist Party's] numerical strength might indicate."
Because Kagan's paper focuses on the role of New Yorkers in the evolution of the Socialist Party, she spends a great deal of time discussing the importance of the participation of Jewish immigrants. Of them Kagan writes, "like many other foreigners, Jews arrived at Ellis Island expecting to find 'the promised land.' They found instead the Lower East Side, the most filthy, congested, and unhealthy section of New York."
Kagan is herself Jewish and was born and raised in New York City. It isn't immediately clear if there is a direct familial connection to this time that might have made the topic of unique interest to her.
In her introduction, Kagan thanks Sean Wilentz, still a professor at Princeton, for "painstakingly" reading through her thesis. Wilentz told Fox News via email that Kagan's work is still memorable nearly 30 years later. "[Kagan's thesis] is a very successful study of futility. In short, I remember thinking it was a mature piece of scholarship coming from a college senior," he wrote. Wilentz says the history of early 20th century socialism has long been a subject of interest to scholars, and Kagan wanted to take a fresh look at the subject. "It was something of a classic topic in the field, and Elena had the intellectual fortitude to take it on," wrote Willentz.
Absent from the paper is any overarching sense of personal attachment to the Socialist Party, its views, or the movement itself. There is scant evidence to suggest that Kagan wrote her senior thesis as an opportunity to promote the Socialist Party as a proxy for her political views.
Perhaps the closest she comes in expressing admiration for the Socialist Party and the spirit of liberalism is in her conclusion. She called the party's decline a sad story, "but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."
"Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe," she wrote. "American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."
Lee Ross
Supreme Court
0
comments Lee Ross wrote this for Fox News Snap Shot
Elena Kagan’s Socialist Thesis
May 17, 2010 - 5:18 PM
by: Lee Ross A 134 page thesis detailing the rise and fall of the American socialist movement is hardly a light read, nor must it have been an easy paper for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to write as a Princeton undergrad in 1981. Yet Kagan produced "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933" as her senior thesis, in the hope, as she wrote, "of clarifying [her] own political ideals."
Unfortunately for politicos intent on discovering more about those ideals, whatever conclusions Kagan reached about her own ideology based on her study of the socialist movement are largely omitted from her final product. In what has become a common description of Kagan, she, even as an undergraduate, displays uncommon intellect but leaves the reader with little understanding of her own deeply-held views.
The research paper was a graduation requirement for Princeton students, who were able to select their own thesis topic. Kagan dedicated the work to her parents, now deceased, and expressed appreciation to her brother Marc, whose participation in radical causes, Kagan says, in part led her to pursue the topic.
The premise of her paper, dated April 15, 1981, is that previously written accounts of the American Socialist Party largely missed the main cause of the party's dissolution in the years following World War I. "Historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism's failure," Kagan wrote.
Internal dissention, Kagan argued, was the root of the party's failure to become a significant political force. Her paper examined the dynamics of the Socialist Party's New York chapter, then the largest in the country.
Though Kagan acknowledged the minimal impact the Socialist Party had on electoral politics a century ago, she maintained the influence of the movement exceeded its electoral performance. "It would be absurd to over-estimate the strength of the early twentieth century socialist movement," she wrote, citing the party's presidential favorite, Eugene V. Debs, who never won a single electoral vote in his five bids for the presidency and never earned more than a million popular votes.
Nonetheless, Kagan contends, "[T]he specter of socialism haunted Americans to a far greater extent than the SP's [Socialist Party's] numerical strength might indicate."
Because Kagan's paper focuses on the role of New Yorkers in the evolution of the Socialist Party, she spends a great deal of time discussing the importance of the participation of Jewish immigrants. Of them Kagan writes, "like many other foreigners, Jews arrived at Ellis Island expecting to find 'the promised land.' They found instead the Lower East Side, the most filthy, congested, and unhealthy section of New York."
Kagan is herself Jewish and was born and raised in New York City. It isn't immediately clear if there is a direct familial connection to this time that might have made the topic of unique interest to her.
In her introduction, Kagan thanks Sean Wilentz, still a professor at Princeton, for "painstakingly" reading through her thesis. Wilentz told Fox News via email that Kagan's work is still memorable nearly 30 years later. "[Kagan's thesis] is a very successful study of futility. In short, I remember thinking it was a mature piece of scholarship coming from a college senior," he wrote. Wilentz says the history of early 20th century socialism has long been a subject of interest to scholars, and Kagan wanted to take a fresh look at the subject. "It was something of a classic topic in the field, and Elena had the intellectual fortitude to take it on," wrote Willentz.
Absent from the paper is any overarching sense of personal attachment to the Socialist Party, its views, or the movement itself. There is scant evidence to suggest that Kagan wrote her senior thesis as an opportunity to promote the Socialist Party as a proxy for her political views.
Perhaps the closest she comes in expressing admiration for the Socialist Party and the spirit of liberalism is in her conclusion. She called the party's decline a sad story, "but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America."
"Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe," she wrote. "American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Obama Wants NET Control
A socialist dictator must control all information. Some might say a Propaganda Ministry is best source to get the right information into the hands of the people. B Obama said we are getting to much information through all of the new technologies. The Internet is one of the sources of knowledge that is BAD. He has tried to run the Net by using the FCC. A month ago, the Federal Appeals Court of D.C. unanimously rule that the FCC didn't have the power to regulate traffic on the Internet. Control of the Net is important to control free speech. Only a progressive blogger would be able to communicate because ONLY they have the truth. The reason for FCC regulate the Internet was because President B Obama could not get Net Neutral legislation passed by congress. He was unable to make his manipulation of media look like the will of congress so the administration control through the FCC was the next choice to prologize us.
The newspapers are the messagars of Obama for the most part. The NY Times, The LA Times,and the Boston Globe print all the truth the Administration wants you to know. ABC.CBS,and NBC are the papers with Obama pictures. National Public Radio is progressive Obama radio. To control the Net would finish off the taking over control of information. Control the information control the people. El Presidenta Obama wants your freedom of speech.
The newspapers are the messagars of Obama for the most part. The NY Times, The LA Times,and the Boston Globe print all the truth the Administration wants you to know. ABC.CBS,and NBC are the papers with Obama pictures. National Public Radio is progressive Obama radio. To control the Net would finish off the taking over control of information. Control the information control the people. El Presidenta Obama wants your freedom of speech.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Doing It Greek
The United States economy is going turn us into Greece.The Greek government was the "nanny" for very citizen. Government gave out free health care,free education,free everything else if you did not want to work.Our politicians will not control our boarders. The EU force open boarders on Greece. We are moving quickly to government controlled society from cradle to grave by the central government will meet your needs.
The riots in Athens are because people are being weened from the breast milk of BIG government. The unions have shut down the country. College students hit the streets because they will have to pay for school.
Why should you care? Greece is over there and you are here.There are two reasons to be concerned.
1) Greece budget deficit totals 13.6% of GDP, and the United States is 9.9% GDP.
2)The USA is the largest giver to the International Monetary Fund which is loaning money to Greece.
As the Socialist Democrats in this country give out more and more entitlements the deficit as a percentage of GDP will grow. Will we have riots at 13% or sooner. The fact that we are the largest contributor to the IMF is going to increase our debt was we loan money to Greece. As the IMF helps bail out the Greeks we are contributing to our demise. There is no nation in the IMF that is going to save the USA.
The Peoples Republic of China are holding much of the US debt. If we default on the debt is China going to just forgive it? Athens is the future of Washington D.C.,New York,New York,Boston and LA unless the Socialist Democrates and RINO Republicans are not stopped from taxing and spending.
The riots in Athens are because people are being weened from the breast milk of BIG government. The unions have shut down the country. College students hit the streets because they will have to pay for school.
Why should you care? Greece is over there and you are here.There are two reasons to be concerned.
1) Greece budget deficit totals 13.6% of GDP, and the United States is 9.9% GDP.
2)The USA is the largest giver to the International Monetary Fund which is loaning money to Greece.
As the Socialist Democrats in this country give out more and more entitlements the deficit as a percentage of GDP will grow. Will we have riots at 13% or sooner. The fact that we are the largest contributor to the IMF is going to increase our debt was we loan money to Greece. As the IMF helps bail out the Greeks we are contributing to our demise. There is no nation in the IMF that is going to save the USA.
The Peoples Republic of China are holding much of the US debt. If we default on the debt is China going to just forgive it? Athens is the future of Washington D.C.,New York,New York,Boston and LA unless the Socialist Democrates and RINO Republicans are not stopped from taxing and spending.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
King of the Governor's Hill
People like to says they vote for the man/woman and not the party. The 2010 race or Governor in MA is a good time vote for the man Tim for Governor. Tim is by no means a perfect conservative candidate. His views on homosexual marriage and abortion are NOT those a purist conservative.
We could vote for "De vault" Patrick. which grantees MA because CA in the next four years. We could vote for I always like universal health care Baker. De vault and Baker are cut from the same progressive cloth. If Baker was a conservative he would NOT have the run ads with lies.
"When Cahill took over the PRIT Fund, it was worth 26 billion dollars. After nearly eight years of Cahill’s oversight, it stands at $44+ billion" from Cahill's website. A good return on investment. The universal MA health care is being paid for impart by stimulus money from Washington D.C. What happens to MA Medicaid after the stimulus is gone? We the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pay to keep MA Obamacare funded.Baker is so close to the hospitals they hear him snore at night. Tim wanted to raise the gasoline tax IF the tolls on the roads were stopped.
The attacks on Tim's positions are like a cultures attacks on the Bible. The attackers quote Tim only out of context. Context is king. For the MA governors race in 2010 Tim is King of the Hill.
We could vote for "De vault" Patrick. which grantees MA because CA in the next four years. We could vote for I always like universal health care Baker. De vault and Baker are cut from the same progressive cloth. If Baker was a conservative he would NOT have the run ads with lies.
"When Cahill took over the PRIT Fund, it was worth 26 billion dollars. After nearly eight years of Cahill’s oversight, it stands at $44+ billion" from Cahill's website. A good return on investment. The universal MA health care is being paid for impart by stimulus money from Washington D.C. What happens to MA Medicaid after the stimulus is gone? We the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pay to keep MA Obamacare funded.Baker is so close to the hospitals they hear him snore at night. Tim wanted to raise the gasoline tax IF the tolls on the roads were stopped.
The attacks on Tim's positions are like a cultures attacks on the Bible. The attackers quote Tim only out of context. Context is king. For the MA governors race in 2010 Tim is King of the Hill.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Mexican Southern Boarder vs United States Southern Boarder
Comments Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home
by J. Michael Waller
05/08/2006
"Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve"
It is time to get as tough on our southern board as Mexico is on theirs.If you are living in South America your hardest board to cross to get into the US is the Mexican boarder.If you can get to the northern part of Mexico without being deported by the Mexican government your in. The US has a lot of Latin America come in illegal. The illegals are not just poor Mexican family man who can not get work in Mexico
Drug and people runners fly across the broader.Mexican official are bought and paid for by the drug cart ells.
The boarder is worst now than went McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was on the table. The US Army cannot arrest US citizens.The army must secure the boards of our country.
by J. Michael Waller
05/08/2006
"Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve"
It is time to get as tough on our southern board as Mexico is on theirs.If you are living in South America your hardest board to cross to get into the US is the Mexican boarder.If you can get to the northern part of Mexico without being deported by the Mexican government your in. The US has a lot of Latin America come in illegal. The illegals are not just poor Mexican family man who can not get work in Mexico
Drug and people runners fly across the broader.Mexican official are bought and paid for by the drug cart ells.
The boarder is worst now than went McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill was on the table. The US Army cannot arrest US citizens.The army must secure the boards of our country.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Positively Perry
Jeff is great for the 10th District in MA. He was seeking to represent us in congress before the incumbent quit. After the Democrat who held the seat for many years resigned some R's decided the political timing was right to run. Jeff wants to serve the voters of the district as a statesman NOT as a simple politician. The latter comes are more a politician than statesman. The politican checks the political winds before choosing to run. Let us throw our support to a statesman who has already represented part of the district on Beacon Hill. Jeff voted against MA unviersal health care on princple in the General Court.( The General Court is the MA House of Rep.)
"A Republican crackdown blocking illegal immigrants from scooping up taxpayer-funded benefits such as welfare and food stamps is gaining steam on Beacon Hill - as Democratic lawmakers and two candidates for governor scrambled yesterday to back the tough new measure" and Jeff Perry was working for LEGAL Americans. We should have Jeff in Washington D.C.not giving citizenship befits to illegals in this country.
We can have a constitutional republic.
SENATOR SCOTT BROWN ENDORSES JEFF PERRY
FOR CONGRESS IN THE 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE
"In his first major Massachusetts endorsement since he was elected to the United States Senate, Senator Scott Brown announced today that he is supporting State Representative Jeff Perry in the 10th Congressional District race
“Scott Brown stands for something very special and very rare in politics today, bringing government back to the people. And today I am very proud to have him standing for me,” Jeff Perry said.
“Scott Brown won the hearts, minds and the votes of good people all over the 10th District when he pledged to listen to them on the crucial challenges facing our nation. Scott knows that they want the federal government to stop spending money they don’t have, to rebuild the economy and create jobs and to protect our nation in these very dangerous times. And so do I.” Senator Brown won 60% of the vote in the 10th District during the Special Senate Election on January 19th."
It is time to move Jeff Perry from Beacon Hill in Boston to the Capital in Washington.
"A Republican crackdown blocking illegal immigrants from scooping up taxpayer-funded benefits such as welfare and food stamps is gaining steam on Beacon Hill - as Democratic lawmakers and two candidates for governor scrambled yesterday to back the tough new measure" and Jeff Perry was working for LEGAL Americans. We should have Jeff in Washington D.C.not giving citizenship befits to illegals in this country.
We can have a constitutional republic.
SENATOR SCOTT BROWN ENDORSES JEFF PERRY
FOR CONGRESS IN THE 10TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RACE
"In his first major Massachusetts endorsement since he was elected to the United States Senate, Senator Scott Brown announced today that he is supporting State Representative Jeff Perry in the 10th Congressional District race
“Scott Brown stands for something very special and very rare in politics today, bringing government back to the people. And today I am very proud to have him standing for me,” Jeff Perry said.
“Scott Brown won the hearts, minds and the votes of good people all over the 10th District when he pledged to listen to them on the crucial challenges facing our nation. Scott knows that they want the federal government to stop spending money they don’t have, to rebuild the economy and create jobs and to protect our nation in these very dangerous times. And so do I.” Senator Brown won 60% of the vote in the 10th District during the Special Senate Election on January 19th."
It is time to move Jeff Perry from Beacon Hill in Boston to the Capital in Washington.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Half Baker Idea
The title is a play on words.The original phase is a half baked idea. Charlie is a Republican in Name Only.No conservative who invest ages Charlie's views will vote for him. He was Mitt Romney's right man developing Romeycare for Mass. The information at Baker's website about health care points to more taxes to pay hospitals for Medicaid short falls." The state must live up to its end of the bargain and reform its Medicaid program so hospitals and small businesses are not subsidizing health for low income Medicaid subscribers." Raising taxes and or fees is the only way to the hospitals for money lost to Romneycare.
The only way Massachusetts has not gone in bankruptcy is because stimulus funds have paid the Medicaid short fall. When the stimulus money has dried up MA will like CA. If you want IOU's from the state instead of checks vote Baker for Governor.
"Massachusetts is losing jobs to competing states because of unpredictable and changing tax laws, unfair health care costs that penalize small businesses, high-energy costs, and unreasonable rules, regulations, and permitting laws enacted by state bureaucrats who’ve never met a payroll." from Charlie's website. The Obamacare test case in the state should be bring companies to MA. Is the healthcare that Mr.Baker work on for Governor Romney good for job creation or bad.
The only way Massachusetts has not gone in bankruptcy is because stimulus funds have paid the Medicaid short fall. When the stimulus money has dried up MA will like CA. If you want IOU's from the state instead of checks vote Baker for Governor.
"Massachusetts is losing jobs to competing states because of unpredictable and changing tax laws, unfair health care costs that penalize small businesses, high-energy costs, and unreasonable rules, regulations, and permitting laws enacted by state bureaucrats who’ve never met a payroll." from Charlie's website. The Obamacare test case in the state should be bring companies to MA. Is the healthcare that Mr.Baker work on for Governor Romney good for job creation or bad.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Hating Wall St
We are off and running in the race to socialize the banking system. Chairman B.Hussuin Obama cannot what until after Nov. to get social justice out of Wall St. The Chairman forgot that as Senator Obama he received over 900,000 dollars from the bad banks on the Street for campaign funds. It was a bad investment for the banks that are now going to be nationized by the Socialist Democratics.If El Presidenta B Hussuin Obama hates Wall St fat cats he should give BACK the 996,640 dollors that Goldman Sac gave to his campaign. The Chairman is "rightously" up set with big bankers after he spent their money to be the first Black Liberation theologian President.His bipartisain votes will be RINOs (Republican In Name Only) like Sen Saxby(Rino) GA.
The hope is that the working class (Prolotriate) will join Chairman BHO in blaming the banking system for their problems. The Chairman believes the workers are dumb and will blindly fellow him. The workers know it was comrades Rep Frank (DS-MA) and Sen Dodd (DS-CT) got the ball rolling by forcing banks to giving loans to people who couldnot afford houses, It is the social justice of the Socialist Democrates started the housing bust not the bankers.
Congressial Republicans must hold the line against Chairman Obama and the Socialisz Democratrates until the second Tuesday in Nov.2010.
The hope is that the working class (Prolotriate) will join Chairman BHO in blaming the banking system for their problems. The Chairman believes the workers are dumb and will blindly fellow him. The workers know it was comrades Rep Frank (DS-MA) and Sen Dodd (DS-CT) got the ball rolling by forcing banks to giving loans to people who couldnot afford houses, It is the social justice of the Socialist Democrates started the housing bust not the bankers.
Congressial Republicans must hold the line against Chairman Obama and the Socialisz Democratrates until the second Tuesday in Nov.2010.
Friday, April 16, 2010
A Fat VAT
It is time to think about the next round of taxes that the savior of the Socialist States of America will force on us for our "good".
Paul Volcker is a financial advisor to Chairman Oboma is in favor of a value added tax. A VAT taxes goods and service as they move from raw materials to final consummation. An example would be pizza cheese. The value add taxes taxes the farmer that produces the milk than the trucker who takes the milk to the cheese maker the wholesale who buys the cheese and the vendor who sells the cheese to your local pizza restaurant. Your cheese pizza price pays all these add taxes.
Volcher believes a VAT will pay the Federal debt off. The biggest falsie is that a value added tax will be used to pay off the debt. The more money government receives the more it spends.
VATs already are in existence in Europe. The value added tax starts out small and grows. The tax will be sold to us as a small tax. England's VAT started at 10% now it is at 17.5%. The VAT in Iceland is 25.5%. The tax is in the price of the goods and services you buy in Europeans countries. Unlike a sales tax which is add on at the point of purchase the VAT is a hind tax.
BHO and the Socialist Democrates should move to Europe if they want European taxes.
Paul Volcker is a financial advisor to Chairman Oboma is in favor of a value added tax. A VAT taxes goods and service as they move from raw materials to final consummation. An example would be pizza cheese. The value add taxes taxes the farmer that produces the milk than the trucker who takes the milk to the cheese maker the wholesale who buys the cheese and the vendor who sells the cheese to your local pizza restaurant. Your cheese pizza price pays all these add taxes.
Volcher believes a VAT will pay the Federal debt off. The biggest falsie is that a value added tax will be used to pay off the debt. The more money government receives the more it spends.
VATs already are in existence in Europe. The value added tax starts out small and grows. The tax will be sold to us as a small tax. England's VAT started at 10% now it is at 17.5%. The VAT in Iceland is 25.5%. The tax is in the price of the goods and services you buy in Europeans countries. Unlike a sales tax which is add on at the point of purchase the VAT is a hind tax.
BHO and the Socialist Democrates should move to Europe if they want European taxes.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
NO NUKES OBAMA
Yesterday, April 6, 2010 Comrade Obama told the enemies of these United States of America no matter who the USA is attacked he will NOT retaliate with a nuclear strike. A bio-attack or a chemical attack could wipe out a middle sized city.
The Chairman is living in his socialist Utopian world. In the real world many people hate the United States of America. The governments of Iran and North Korea do not want to play nice with America. North Korea would sell an a-bomb to Islamic fundies to raise much need cash. Iran will give an a-bomb to Islamic brothers to wage war against the Great Satan. The civilians of the USA are the great Satan.
If savior B.Hussain Oboma works a miracle so that most of the nuclear powers so they don't attack US we need the right to counter attack the renegade nations. We must not forget that it was the doctrine of mutual destruction keep us safe during the Cold War. DMD was the understanding you could not win by starting a nuclear war with the US because our nukes would also destroy you. Iran and North Korea don not have that fear under BHO's leadership.
The Chairman is living in his socialist Utopian world. In the real world many people hate the United States of America. The governments of Iran and North Korea do not want to play nice with America. North Korea would sell an a-bomb to Islamic fundies to raise much need cash. Iran will give an a-bomb to Islamic brothers to wage war against the Great Satan. The civilians of the USA are the great Satan.
If savior B.Hussain Oboma works a miracle so that most of the nuclear powers so they don't attack US we need the right to counter attack the renegade nations. We must not forget that it was the doctrine of mutual destruction keep us safe during the Cold War. DMD was the understanding you could not win by starting a nuclear war with the US because our nukes would also destroy you. Iran and North Korea don not have that fear under BHO's leadership.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Nationalize US Banks
What is the next move for the Socialist Democratic Party and Chairman Oboma?
The Party will pass financial reform legislation. The USSA Treasure will take over any capitalist business he/she believes is to big to fail with financial problems. After seizing the banks all the officers will be fired by the treasurer. The new "bankers" will be appointed by the USSA(United Socialist States of America) The st inching capitalist pig stockholders get no thing.
Once the Socialist Democratic Party controls the banks only companies willing to give money to The Party will get loans to grow their companies. The competition goes out of business and the companies put on a five year plan. The old USSR ran on five year economic plans. The entire country will be working for the government or working to pay the taxes for the government
Chairman Oboma and the Party destroy this country from within. Individual liberty will be gone;the greatest experiment in government will die. It was the United States of America.
The Socialist Democrates unfortunately pass B Hussiun Obama Financal "Reform "Bill with the help of Sen Snow (R) Maine and Sen # 41 (R) Massachusetts
The Party will pass financial reform legislation. The USSA Treasure will take over any capitalist business he/she believes is to big to fail with financial problems. After seizing the banks all the officers will be fired by the treasurer. The new "bankers" will be appointed by the USSA(United Socialist States of America) The st inching capitalist pig stockholders get no thing.
Once the Socialist Democratic Party controls the banks only companies willing to give money to The Party will get loans to grow their companies. The competition goes out of business and the companies put on a five year plan. The old USSR ran on five year economic plans. The entire country will be working for the government or working to pay the taxes for the government
Chairman Oboma and the Party destroy this country from within. Individual liberty will be gone;the greatest experiment in government will die. It was the United States of America.
The Socialist Democrates unfortunately pass B Hussiun Obama Financal "Reform "Bill with the help of Sen Snow (R) Maine and Sen # 41 (R) Massachusetts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
More than Healthcare
We the people must remember there is more to Obamacare than doctor shortages and old fokes getting pain pills instead of operations because the universal health care has universal costs that are to high. Chairman Oboma is running an old confidence game called the shell game.While some people who watch Fox News are concern about the constitutionally of the liberty ending health care the Chairman of the Socialist Democratic Party is looking long term. He needs to execute plan that CANNOT be changed by people who "cling to there guns and religion". Obama makes sure that the United Socialist State of America continues after HIS regain by controlling education. The future of higher education is control by the federal government in this unconstitutional statute. If you need an educational loan you WILL HAVE to go through The government in Washington. No private loans for education. You get a discount if you give 10 years of service to the government upon graduatiion. No private funds for education unless you live in North Dakota. The bank of North Dakota is exampted for the law so one North Dakota Sentor would vote for the bill. If the Socialist Democrates control hight education will make sure that all "thinking" people with be socialist. The United Socialists States of America will be entacted as the peoples nation under humanism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)