You've Come a long way baby!

Take two minutes to review the past 200 years on Earth.


http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

More Minimal Cues: 4 U: See the FUTURE

For God's sake, make an effort, will you?

Visit: http://www.flixxy.com/gm-hy-wire-concept-car.htm

And lots of more for hours of interesting stuff.

http://www.flixxy.com

WOW ...World of Words

Got A Minute?

Take Time to Blow your Mind

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

Of course, if TIME is all you're interested in visit:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/full.html?sort=1

They're back.

Can't seem to avoid these people.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933

Opening Doors

This URL will really open doors for you.

http://www.flixxy.com/high-tech-car-door.htm

Personal Aside

We are NOT all born equal…..At best we are all born equal before the Law.

I know my Rights!....Sorry but you lose your ‘rights’ if you fail to accept your ‘responsibilities’.

Money is the root of all Evil…Wrong again. Don’t blame ‘money’. The love of money is the root of all Evil…i.e. “GREED”.

However, unfortunately, it does seem to be true that, "No good deed goes unpunished."

George Soros (Liberal) vs Rupert Murdoch (Conservative)

Who is Evil? Are they both Evil? Tell us what you think?
(Unless, of course, you have given up thinking.)

George:
http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/george-soros-the-most-evi.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread501668/pg1

Rupert:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/11/rupert-murdoch-guardian-paywalls

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200906020036

* Minimal Cues just points the way.

You can spend more than you have.........but not forever.

European and American debt crises signal an era of austerity

By Michael GersonWednesday, May 19, 2010

Following decades of welfare-state comfort and years of Keynesian stimulus spending, a panicky Europe is seeing the arrival of austerity politics. Resentful debtors such as Greece, Spain and Portugal are being forced into tax increases and spending cuts that are painful, unpopular -- and just beginning. Their resentful citizens throw tantrums and sometimes rocks at police. Resentful creditors such as Germany provide bailouts while wondering why they ever shackled themselves (and the value of their currency) to such irresponsible governments.
Those not resentful are scared. Britain -- with a deficit that is higher as a percentage of its economy than Greece's -- has formed a coalition government united by little except a commitment to budget responsibility. The constitutional innovation of keeping the current Parliament for the next five years is designed to assure creditors and markets that David Cameron's government will be stable enough to make difficult fiscal choices.
Every looming budget crisis is eventually a political test -- a test of political foresight and discipline, or a test of crisis management. And America is not exempt.
In 2009, the federal government spent $1.67 for every $1 it collected in taxes. The Obama administration's budget proposals would dramatically increase publicly held debt as a percentage of the economy over the next decade, eventually slowing economic growth, fueling inflation and making America more dependent on the kindness of creditors.
How has our political system responded? Congress recently found $60 billion in savings in the federal student-loan program -- and promptly spent most of it on other education projects. President Obama's health-care reform cut more than $350 billion from Medicare spending -- and soaked up all of it and more into new health entitlements.
This can go on for only so long before a challenge more similar to Britain's becomes a fate more similar to Greece's. America is about to enter its own period of austerity, which is likely to be the dominant political reality for the next decade. The new game will have few winners and many losers.
If the federal government takes spending reductions seriously, the first wave of austerity would hit the states and public employees. An infusion of cash from last year's stimulus package temporarily masked the unsustainable fiscal condition of many states. But there will be no more stimulus packages. Some of the largest states -- California, New York -- are on the verge of default. And they will achieve major spending reductions only by cutting their pension and public employee compensation systems. This would set up a serious battle between state governments and the labor movement, since a majority of union workers are public employees. Democratic governors, elected with union support, would be in for a particularly interesting time.
In austerity politics, another group of likely losers is middle-class Americans in their 40s. There can be no serious reduction in federal spending without entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare eventually will need to be transformed from middle-class entitlements given because of age to entitlements given to those with lower incomes. In any entitlement reform, Americans at or near retirement will probably be exempt. Young people will have decades to prepare for a new entitlement structure. Middle-aged, middle-class people may be caught, well, in the middle.
And the biggest losers may be responsible politicians who take these realities seriously. Necessary changes will not resemble the relatively painless deficit reduction deals of 1990 or 1993. This round may require not only the means testing of Social Security and Medicare but also the reduction or elimination of middle-class entitlements such as the mortgage interest deduction and the employer health-care exclusion. Some politicians may be asked to sacrifice their careers for an important cause.
Because of the difficulties, it is possible that the federal government will not be serious about spending cuts. Public employees and the middle-class elderly, after all, are powerful voting groups. The alternative is to attempt deficit reduction primarily through tax increases -- perhaps an additional consumption or value-added tax. But this approach would involve a massive shift of resources from the private sector to the public sector, making many people poorer for the benefit of favored political constituencies. To sustain expansive public commitments, Americans would be asked to accept lower economic growth and weaker job creation. And middle-class voters may not like higher taxes any more than reduced benefits.
An austerity era is a miserable, thankless time to serve in politics -- but also an important one.
mgerson@globalengage.org

USA: "Maker" or "Taker"

For most of the life of America, and when it grew fastest, government spent just a few hundred dollars per person. Today, the federal government alone spends $10,000. Politicians talk about cuts, but the cuts rarely happen. The political class always needs more.
I see the pressure. All day, Congress listens to people who say they need and deserve help.
The cost of any one program per taxpayer is small, but the benefits are concentrated on well-organized interest groups. It's tough for a weak politician to say no.
But maybe things are changing. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., believes that "more and more people in America are beginning to wake up to the fact that this thing is coming unglued."
I asked Ryan why his colleagues say it's OK to spend more. Are they just stupid? Don't they care? Or are they pandering for votes?
"Pandering could be a part of it," he said. "But ... they believe that the government should be far larger." They are taught that by the progressives who rule academia, like Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill.
"We have to make sure that the most vulnerable people are always protected," Hill says. Everyone benefits when we pay a little bit more to create universal health care. Everyone benefits when we pay a little more to have better public education systems."
Progressives use the word "we" too often. When I argued the that "we" and "government" are not the same, he said, "We always talk about the government like it's this monster in the hills that comes down and hands things out and takes our tax money."
Well, yes.
Those are "libertarian fairytales," Hill says. "In real life, the government is us."
Government is not "us." Well, it's us in the sense that we pay the bills. But it ain't us. It's them, the policy elite and their patrons.
What percent of the economy does Hill think government should be?
"For me, housing, health care and education, in addition to national defense, are things that the government must provide for people. So if that means 20 percent, I'm OK with it. If it means 30 percent, I'm OK with it. I don't think it'll ever get that big."
Give me a break. It's already at 40 percent!
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets -- some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt -- now $13 trillion -- simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, "It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share."
Our "fair share" sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
"No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society."
Brooks wrote "The Battle," which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
"The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society."
But it seems "kind" to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
"Actually, it's not," Brooks says. "The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that's been created by the private sector."
He warns that "Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status."
Americans in "open rebellion"? I'm skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I've said to tea partiers, "We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies," the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.

John Stossel

* For more: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2010/09/22/the_battle_for_the_future

Where is the USA Money Going?

The United States Federal Budget
By Chris Danello — September 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm

The U.S. federal government is by far the largest single entity in the world. As of fiscal year 2009, its expenditures of $3.6 trillion exceeded those of the second and third biggest governments combined. This largely reflects the size of the American economy, itself the largest on the planet. Federal spending has grown by about 5 percent over the past decade, significantly faster than the rate of inflation. The fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.6 trillion was also, by far, the greatest in the world. In the years ahead, the federal budget will be strained by static revenue and exploding costs, largely, though not exclusively, as a result of ballooning spending on Medicare and Social Security. Major reforms are needed to put the budget on a sustainable path.
Revenues
Since the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the federal income tax has provided the greatest single source of revenue for the federal government. Over the past decade, income taxes have comprised approximately 45 percent of the government’s intake. Payroll taxes, the second largest revenue source, have raised about 36 percent. While income tax revenue is not earmarked for any specific purpose, payroll taxes finance entitlement programs, mainly Social Security and part of Medicare. The corporate tax, the estate tax, tariffs, and other revenues comprise the other 19 percent.
Revenues have declined from an all-time high of 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000 to a 50-year low of 14.8 percent in 2009. But these numbers are slightly misleading: 2000 saw the height of the Internet bubble, 2009 the bottom of the housing bust. In most years, federal revenue ranges between 17 and 19 percent of GDP, depending on the state of the economy. The income tax and the corporate tax are more prone to economic fluctuation than payroll taxes. To wit, income tax revenues brought in $1.16 trillion in 2007, and just $915 billion in the midst of the recession two years later. Payroll tax receipts, by contrast, expanded from $869 to $890 billion, unchanged as a percentage of GDP.
Demographic changes in coming decades are expected to cause major revenue challenges. The retirement of the baby boom generation will require a dramatic increase in expenditures on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there will be proportionally fewer taxpayers to finance these programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that revenue will peak in 2019 before declining irrevocably. If Congress chooses to extend the Bush tax cuts, or if there is a recession between now and 2019, revenue will remain considerably lower.
Expenditures
Most analysis divides expenditure into two broad categories: discretionary and entitlement spending. Discretionary spending is set by an annual congressional budget resolution, while entitlements, which consist primarily of Social Security and Medicare, are established by a long-term legislative program and do not require renewal.
Both entitlement and discretionary spending have grown substantially over the past decade. Expenditures have risen from 18.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to an estimated 25.2 percent in 2010. Discretionary spending has grown at an annual rate of 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2009. Despite the common conception that military spending, which represents about half of discretionary spending, consumes the budget, defense expenditures represented just 18.7 percent of total spending in 2009; the military budget has increased at a pace similar to that of the rest of discretionary spending over the past decade.
While the expansion of discretionary spending is a problem, entitlement growth, which has been about 5.4 percent per year over the past decade, poses an even greater challenge. The majority of entitlement expansion has been driven by increased expenses in Medicare and other income-security programs; while Social Security outlays have increased in absolute terms, the program has decreased from 22.7 to 19.3 percent of the budget over the past decade.
If demographic projections are any indication, the bulk of entitlement growth is yet to come. The CBO estimates that in ten years entitlement spending will reach 22 percent of GDP, about as much as the federal government spends on the entire budget today. Social Security spending is expected to increase by half of one percent of GDP, and health spending up to double that. And there is no end in sight. Without changes to the current laws, mandatory spending will reach 44 percent of GDP by 2080, greater than government’s share of the economy during World War II. Such analysis assumes discretionary spending will remain relatively flat. But if it continues to grow at its current pace, government spending will reach unprecedented heights.
Deficits and Debt
The federal deficit is simply the gap between the government’s expenditures and its revenues in a given year. The government has run a deficit every year since 1969, save for a brief period between fiscal years 1997 and 2000. In 2009, the deficit stood at $1.4 trillion, the largest nominal figure in history. This represents 9.9 percent of GDP, the largest since the end of World War II in 1945. The CBO estimates that the fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.56 trillion, 10.6 percent of GDP, will be greater still.
As of 2009, the CBO reports that total federal debt stood at $11.9 trillion, 83.4 percent of GDP. Much of this debt is held by the federal government itself, most of it in the Social Security Trust Fund. The public holds debt worth 53 percent of GDP. Foreign nations own about half of that; China ranks highest among U.S. creditors with $868 billion in American securities, followed by Japan’s $787 billion, the United Kingdom’s $350 billion, and oil exporters’ collective $235 billion.
As dismal as these figures are, one should hasten to add that the deficit varies with the state of the economy, and the tremendous deficits of 2009 and 2010 stem largely from the current recession. For most of the past decade, for example, the economy was in much better shape than it is today; deficits peaked at 3.5 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2004, before declining to just 1.4 percent in 2007.
The years ahead will likely prove more daunting. The CBO estimates that deficits will decline from their 2010 high, but remain over 3.9 percent of GDP through 2014 and 2015. The cause, simply put, is that the government is not raising enough tax revenue to pay for its spending promises. Mushrooming entitlement spending will cause deficits to rise virtually unabated, reaching catastrophic levels if health care costs are not controlled.
The unchecked growth of federal debt could have dangerous consequences. As Greece’s recent fate has demonstrated, the consequence of high debt means unwillingness of creditors to lend, and the potential onset of a crisis in which the government literally cannot fund its most basic operations. The borrowing required by such high deficits induces higher interest rates, which crowd out private sector investment, lowering growth rates and living standards.
It remains relatively unlikely that the United States could fall to Grecian levels, if for no other reason than that many of its creditor nations face the same demographic squeeze that now threatens the American budget. On the other hand America is not Greece; it is far bigger and far more central to the global economy. Even a downgrade in America’s credit rating would send shockwaves around the world, devastate those who purchase government bonds, (essentially all American investors, as well as those who receive Social Security benefits) and could trigger a global financial crisis. Recognizing this, President Obama has convened a debt commission, tasked with reigning in the nation’s debt. The solutions will almost certainly be politically unpalatable, but may still prove the best hope of averting America’s dire fiscal future.

* For more visit: http://hpronline.org/category/arusa/

Did Churchill see it coming?

The following short speech was delivered by Winston Churchill in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many today, but is expressed in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

"Sir Winston Churchill; (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 London)

Kill the Fed: JFK tried with executive order 11110

Sadly you will not take the time to read this. You are much too busy with more important matters. What a pity. Remain in the dark like a mushroom and be happy to be sustained by manure.

From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, ifso, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?
Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-
By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):
(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption
and --
Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.
Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.
John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.
Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.
Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)
Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.
Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.
Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.
No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.
The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.
The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.
Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Some information on the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is a Private Corporation. One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay its bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."
Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:
Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:
Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).
The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:
The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.
As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.
No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:
Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enoughmoney to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.
The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:
Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.
Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.
A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.
The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.
Related Articles:
JFK vs Federal ReserveThe JFK Mythby G. Edward

Foreign aid needed. Please send cash or gold ingots.

WTF, OMG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKR9yvJp3R8&NR=1

Stuck in the Muslim Mire

Sorry to be stuck on this topic.
The video is a "Call to Action"...Not sure what action is required unless we're all supposed to get busy procreating. Any other suggestions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc

Who Speaks for Islam?

Who Speaks for Islam?

Where are the loving, peaceful Muslims?
There are 1.57 billion Muslims comprising 23% of the world's population.
The majority of Muslims live in Asia and Africa. Approximately 62% of the world's Muslims live in Asia, with over 683 million adherents in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. In the Middle East, non-Arab countries such as Turkey and Iran are the largest Muslim-majority countries; in Africa, Egypt and Nigeria have the most populous Muslim communities. However there are large Muslim communities in most countries all over the world.
We are constantly reminded by the media that the Muslim terrorists are a small fanatical group that does not represent the Islamic religion. This is true and is certainly politically correct if one does not wish to offend the Muslim community at large. However where are the peaceful Muslim leaders who should be condemning the terrorists? They are strangely silent. This gives the impression that they are giving tacit approval to the terrorist acts. If the Muslim communities rose in unison in opposition to the Muslim terrorists the problem would disappear in short order.
There are spontaneous demonstrations world-wide at the slightest affront to the Islamic religion. A cartoon, a single burning of the Qur’an, a speech against further Muslim immigration, an unfavorable reference in a magazine have all brought outrage and flamed hostilities. Yet major acts of Muslim terrorism cause not a wisp of criticism from Islamic leaders.
If Islam is a peaceful, loving religion its leaders must speak out against acts of terrorism. If they do not they are implicitly involved in encouraging it and guilty of the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Islam: Methinks Bill O'Reilly would concur but not the ladies on "The View".

Conrad Black: National Post October 16, 2009.

Court moderate Muslims, but treat the extremists for what they are.

It is certainly time that the West considered systematically if our civilization has irreconcilable differences with Islam. The belligerence of many Islamic spokesmen, the failure to assimilate of many Muslim immigrants, as well as the spectacular terrorist provocations of extreme Islamic groups make this a legitimate question.
But it is not so easy to answer. Some passages of the Koran, and some of the more purposeful remarks attributed to Muhammad, certainly incite the inference that mortal conflict is inevitable — an impression heightened by the neurotic obsession of a great many Muslims with the red herring of Israel. It is hard for Westerners to know what to make of Islam: As the Muslim world stretched from Morocco to Indonesia, it became ever more fissiparous and hydra-headed. It speaks through an infinite number of clerical and secular leaders, and in a range of vocabularies from fraternal to genocidally hostile.
Muhammad was allegedly instructed to found Islam in 610, by the versatile Archangel Gabriel. Twelve years later, Muhammad still had only 150 followers. He then decamped to the Jewish oasis of Yathrib, seized control of it, renamed it Medina, set up the first mosque, and went forth to conquer Arabia. Unlike Jesus, or the contemplative and sedentary Gautama, founder of Buddhism, Muhammad was a military leader who advanced by fire and sword and told his followers to emulate him. They established Sharia, a totalitarian legal system whose edicts go far beyond what even the most pious and fervent Westerner would consider the province of religion.
Aggressive Arab Islam surged westwards across Africa and into Spain, and then into France, before being repulsed by Charles Martel (Charlemagne’s grandfather) at Tours in 732. To the historically-minded, including many Arabs, the Arab world has been in retreat for the 13 centuries that followed (which may explain some of the militancy of Arab extremists).
On the other side of the Mediterranean, Turkish Muslims managed to take Constantinople from the Greek Orthodox Byzantines in 1453; and then surged into Europe, finally being repulsed from the gates of Vienna — twice, in 1529 and 1683. Thereupon, they too gradually subsided. A joint Spanish and Italian navy defeated the Turks at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, as great and important a battle as that of the Spanish Armada 17 years later; that stopped the Turkish amphibious efforts to seize Italy and the western Mediterranean.
In our own era, Muslims are made incomprehensible to all but the most assiduous Western student of that culture by a combination of ancient prejudices, the ever-changing fluidity of Muslim relationships and alliances, the severe decentralization of the world Muslim community, and the bizarre reaction of Muslim societies to seemingly trivial events. To many Westerners, there is an ingrained Muslim caricature of the swarthy peasant raising sinew-lean arms to the heavens, having been commanded to do so by a voice from a minaret loudspeaker; the serried ranks of men pressing their foreheads to the floor and elevating their posteriors (a gesture that is, in our culture, unserious); and the image of Muslims as shady, long-unsuccessful nationalities, or of recent, and not overly dynamic, colonies. Many Western Muslim populations are fractious, and their spokesmen are often unbecomingly hostile to their host nations. Their conditions are inferior, but so are their standards of civic participation.
Vast tracts of the Muslim world react like wounded animals at any perceived slight. When a completely unofficial Danish cartoonist produced some relatively innocuous renderings of Muhammad five years ago, Danish embassies were stoned and the whole nationality was anathematized in many Muslim countries. There also was a tremendous uproar when Pope Benedict XVI referred, disapprovingly (as too sharply formulated) in a speech at Regensburg in 2006 to a conversation between the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an eminent Persian, in 1391, and quoted the emperor as saying “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” It is important to remember that the pope further quoted the emperor as saying that violence was “unreasonable and incompatible with the nature of God and of the soul.” He also had referred to the emperor’s familiarity with the Koranic assertion that “There is no compulsion in religion.” The Pope raised a point that is in the minds of billions of non-Muslims; Islam must reciprocate Western conciliation to some degree or it runs the risk of being regarded as an intractable enemy.
Some eastern Muslims, especially in Indonesia, are advancing determinedly as a sophisticated political society enjoying prolonged high economic growth. Indonesia should be treated as a major power in the world (despite having a very talented president who happens to rejoice in the name of Bambang). Turkey, too, if it doesn’t become too enamored of its courtship with disreputable regimes such as Iran, is an important and potentially successful country. Some of the oil-rich Muslim countries are more or less promising, including Iraq, and the more secular countries are generally more compelling examples of the way forward than the knuckle-dragging theocracies. Some effort should be under way to co-ordinate the policies of the United States, EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan toward at least the most radical Muslim regimes. Given the fiasco with the sanctions plan against Iran, it is not going to be easy. But militant Islam is not, in fact, a very powerful opponent compared to the Axis of World War II or international communism.
Non-Muslim leaders should make it clear that we are not prepared to be condescended to as infidels, and that the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West antedate those of Islam (we are all Abrahamists, but Gabriel called on our preceptors first). The widespread mistreatment of Christian minorities in some Muslim countries should produce proportionate retaliation, though not at the expense of the civil rights of our own Muslim minorities. (The Muslim massacre of up to a million Christian blacks in the Sudan, for instance, should have received a much more energetic and righteous response than it has.) The mad idea of a large mosque almost adjacent to the World Trade Center site should never have gained any traction at all. That whole issue makes our entire society look like idiots, with Michael Bloomberg, Maureen Dowd, Katie Couric et al all thoughtfully holding hands as the Islamists’ proverbial “useful idiots.” The exaggerated indulgence of domestic Western Muslim minorities is degrading and foolish, from the trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, as he participates in a coalition government to rule that country, to the toleration in Ontario of a Muslim woman giving evidence in a trial with her features completely disguised by her costume. In such matters, the French, who are less squeamish about retaining the right to enjoy their magnificent country and lifestyle, will lead the West.
Militant Islam should be recognized as an antagonist. Moderate Muslims should be courted, much more systematically than they have been; The debate should not be between ourselves about how to deal with Muslims, it should be between Muslims about the unwisdom of provoking all the rest of the world.

* Canada must respond to the shambles of its UN Security council bid last week. It should withdraw from what has become the fraud of UN peacekeeping, expand our military, reduce our UN contribution, and focus, as I wrote here last week, on joining with other serious countries in trying to clean out the anthill of UN corruption. The unhouse-trained developing countries that have reduced many of its agencies to a mockery must be sent packing. We have been boy scouts in the world, heady on the delusions of soft power. We now have real economic power and should use it in pursuit of our constructive interests. And those who argue that we should desert Israel to placate the Arabs should be made to wear pointed hats and self-deprecating sandwich boards in public, until they are redeemed by the grace of thought reform.

AMERICA: Wither Goest Thou?

OK..It's quite long and it's dated 1995...an extreme viewpoint? Perhaps. Neverthless it's still relevant.
The only question is whether you can take 5 minutes away from some pointless activity to read the damn thing.


AMERICA - wither goest thou?By Harry V. MartinCopyright Free America and Harry V. Martin, 1995
SPECIAL REPORT
"All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." - Abraharn Lincoln, January 27, 1837.
America - wither goest thou? Today, the United States has no major rival on the international stage. For it to falter, to fall, it would be as Abraham Lincoln said, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher." To listen to talk show radio across the country, to read endless journals - from the far right, to the moderate, to the far left - the same message continues to appear. America is ill. The symptoms of this illness are manifested in what many see as:
rising crime;
increased youth and gang violence;
a widespread drug epidemic;
softness of the penal system;
corruption in government;
crippling taxes;
erosion of Constitutional rights;
excessive government regulations or interference in private lives;
more government controls;
the erosion of moral values and religion;
the failure of education;
too much involvement in foreign wars;
increased illegal immigration;
excessive federal mandates on the states;
a growing bureaucracy at all levels of government;
homelessness is on the rise;
welfare is expanding;
communicable diseases are on the rise;
a declining economy; and
lack of trust in government.
COMPARING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The American public has seen many scandals in government throughout the years - Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Savings and Loan debacle and many others. Now how do these symptoms compare with an illness that fell across France two hundred years ago? These were the social conditions during the French Revolution:
Crime was so bad that the people dared not go out in many places because of fear.
The rich wronged the poor, and the poor hated the rich.
Inequality of taxation - the rich paid little or no tax, while the middle class and poor were heavily taxes. The common people picked up the tab for the extravagances of the Government.
The monetary currency in France was not gold and silver, but was paper called assignants, which was basically worthless - it had only a fictitious value and was bad paper.
In dealing with the French financial crisis, the man in charge - Jacques Necker - just continued to borrow to meet the nation's debt; thus France was basically bankrupt.
The court system was corrupt - judges would listen to a noble, and rule against a peasant, and could be and were bribed.
The people were attached to the state at every point of their existence.
Unemployment was high, and those working were perpetually demanding higher pay.
It is estimated that, at the outbreak of the revolution, 200,000 paupers claimed charity from the hands of the king.
Long lines formed at the doors of bakeries and other stores for meager food rations and other necessary items.
No one was allowed to call you Mr. or Mrs., or Miss, but only Citizen in order to be equal.
The people became indifferent to bloodshed and violence or started vigilante groups for protection.
About 90 percent of the population of France was anti-revolutionaries and only one percent of the population actually participated in the massacres while 99 percent were against bloodshed.
America has yet not fallen on such bleak times - but the signs of the time cry out a warning to all. The warnings of danger first came from the small alternative press and from public radio. But in more and more periodicals the warning is growing. The San Francisco Chronicle, considered a conservative mainstream newspaper, ran an article on October 7, 1993, entitled Next Hot Spot for UN. Troops: The U.S.? The article states: "The United Nations now has multinational peacekeeping troops stationed in 14 countries around the world. The precise missions vary, but they all have one thing in common: The international soldiers are there to help bring tranquility and safety to places that can't do so on their own. So perhaps there is one more place a UN. multinational force is desperately needed: The United States. Preposterous? Maybe not. Maybe it is an issue for the 184 member nations of the UN. to discuss. Sending soldiers from around the world onto the streets of our own country? We probably haven't come to that point where we need such action yet, but we're veering perilously close ."
HONG KONG POLICE RECRUITED FOR NATIONAL POLICE
President Bill Clinton promised at the Conference of U.S. Mayors that he intended to put 100,000 federal police on the street. What federal police? He was not talking about the Drug Enforcement Agency nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation, he was talking about a Federal Police Force. But where do you think this Federal force is coming from? U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer sent us a photocopy of Page 843 of H.R. 3355, the new Federal Crime Bill (we now have the complete 960-page bill). If anyone else had sent such a photocopy we would challenge its credibility. But Senator Boxer's office made a copy of one page of the 960 page Crime Bill. Here is what it says:
SECTION 5108. REPORT ON SUCCESS OF ROYAL HONG KONG POLICE RECRUITMENT.
"Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in concert with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Commissioner of the Customs Service, shall report to Congress and the President on the efforts made, and the success of such efforts, to recruit and hire former Royal Hong Kong Police officers into Federal law enforcement positions. The reports shall discuss any legal or administrative barriers preventing a program of adequate recruitment of former Roval Hong Kong Police officers."
The United States government insists that because of the inner city violence, there is a need for a nalional police force and the hiring of foreign troops, along with the confiscation of firearms. The British Government has used Chinese Ghurkas as the Royal Hong Kong police for many decades, plus they used them as a mercenary army throughout the world. The Ghurkas have been training in the United States for a few years. Journalists and public officials in Montana have verified their presence. President George Bush signed an executive order allowing U.N. troops to be used in the United States to quell civil unrest. President Bill Clinton has signed an executive order that allows United States troops to serve under foreign commanders.
At Fort Polk, Louisiana, U.S. and foreign troops train together - including Russian soldiers. Part of the training is in a mock city built by the government. The training focuses on door-to-door searches for weapons. Similar training was conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Montana. The Associated Press reported on August 21, 1993, the use of Russian equipment and personnel at Fort Polk. The information service office at the base did verify the Russian presence. In both Alabama and in Mississippi Russian and German trucks are parked in compounds which are guarded by black-uniformed soldiers wearing ski masks.
In Anchorage, Alaska, as reported in the Anchorage Times, black uniformed soldiers arrested a motorist and detained him. The incident took place on the Glen Highway near Wasilla. A motorist was speeding and was pulled over by four civilian type vehicles with flashing lights. The motorist stopped his vehicle and was approached by a black uniform trooper with a new model M-16 and packing a sidearm - with no badge or identifying emblem. When the trooper and others started to search the motorist's vehicle, the motorist said he wanted to see a search warrant only to be informed that these troopers did not require a search warrant. Everything was removed from the vehicle. A similar incident occurred in Northern California on Highway 880. When the motorist asked for identification from the troopers and a search warrant, his vehicle was seized.
GANGS RECRUITED
But what is of more concern is the fact that the United States government is now recruiting street gangs. On February 9, 1994, a seminar was held in Chicago. The seminar was called an Urban Summit in which people like Chicago gangster Wallace "Gator" Bradley was one of the attendees. Bradley is the "enforcer" for "King" Larry Hoover, the leader of the Gangster Disciples. The government provided grants to the gangs. The grants, up to $2.5 million, have been provided as an incentive to preserve peace between the gangs. The Washington Times reported on December 14, 1993, "As part of Operation Reconstruction, a fledgling campaign to curb street violence, business leaders are outfitting some of the city's toughest gang members with free cellular phones, jobs and cash. In exchange, the gang members are expected to patrol their neighborhoods." The program's board of directors include Crips leader Michael Darren Ashbrry, who recently threatened to shoot the local police and kill their families, and Bloods leader Eric David James, whose criminal record includes burglary and aggravated motor vehicle theft. Of such a program, the Los Angeles Times reported on April 19, 1993, "A year ago, Bloods and Crips emerged from the ashes with their red and blue bandannas tied in unity. The summer months were marked by jubilant peace gatherings at the housing projects in Watts..." A few of the gang leaders were financially rewarded by the government. But when no further funds were provided the gangs threatened new armed violence and terrorism.
In 1966, a Chicago gang truce was negotiated between the Blackstone Rangers and the Eastside Disciples. The "peacemakers" were rewarded with a $972,000 Federal grant. After receiving the Federal money, the Rangers evolved into an even more ruthless syndicate called El Rukn. During the French Revolution, the Sans-Culotte mobs were organized and controlled by conspiring elites; the mob violence prompted the manipulable masses into seeking authoritarian controls from the revolutionary government. The Nazis used the Brown-shirts to create violence.
In the Crime Bill of 1991, passed by Congress by an overwhelming margin, there are provisions for the U.S. Government to build scores of detention camps around the nation. These detention camps are reportedly to be used for illegal aliens, drug traffickers, and political dissidents. In the 1930s, the Nazis also built such facilities for "similar purposes". Though Congress authorized their construction in 1992, many of these facilities had already been built. The 1991 Crime Bill allows the President of the United States to declare martial law in case of a "drug crisis".
There were 24,703 Americans murdered in 1991 and 1.9 million incidents of violent crime reported - and the emphasis is on reported. The San Francisco Chronicle article of October 7, 1993, further states, "The very thought of these UN troops on American street corners is undoubtedly offensive to millions of Americans - the thought of soldiers from around the world, under the banner of the United Nations, taking over our streets. After all, UN. soldiers traditionally are deployed only to nations that cannot take care of their own problems." The article implies, the United Nations would send troops to any nation with such a lawlessness state - and the United States would qualify under those guidelines.
EMERGENCY POWERS
The nation has been gearing up for internal problems for many years. Hundreds of Presidential Executive Orders have been issued to allow emergency powers under any type of crisis - perceived or real. A Presidential Executive Order - whether Constitutional or not - becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is bypassed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government lo take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln and Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from a wartime need, but from any crisis domestic or foreign, hostile or economic. Roosevelt created extraordinary measures during the Great Depression, but any President faced with a similar - or lesser - economic crisis now has extraordinary powers to assume dictatorial status.
UNITED NATION'S GROWING STATUS
The Constitution of the United Stales provides a mechanism by which foreign treaties must be approved by both the President of the United States and the U.S. Senate. This also holds true for covenants and agreements that require United States participation in foreign bodies.
In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson was the architect of the League of Nations, an international body that would regulate the conduct of nations. The need for such a League was vital in the eyes of Wilson. But to implement it and have the United States participate in it, the Democratic President needed the confirmation of the Republican Senate. The Senate declined to oblige the President and the United States never became a member of the League of Nations. Without the United States, the League sat hopelessly by watching the clouds of World War Two form over Europe, Africa and Asia. With the outbreak of the war, the League of Nations collapsed.
President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Premiere Josef Stalin formulated a plan to institute the United Nations. President Harry Truman stated immediately after Roosevelt's death that the United Nations concept would go forward. The United Nations was born in San Francisco in 1945. The world headquarters for the United Nation was scheduled to be built in Moraga, California, until the Rockefeller family offered the New York site free.
The United Nations was a weak organization, with veto power vested in the Security Council composed of the world powers of the time - the Soviet Union, Nationalist China, Great Britain, France and the United States. Any one nation had the power to cancel any action. There is a gathering strength in the United Nations today, that never existed before and that new position does worry some American political observers. More increasingly, smaller countries are beginning to dominate votes in the General Assembly. The breakup of the Soviet Union, for instance, could provide a greater voice with each Republic gaining a seat in the United Nations. Already, the nation of Macedonia - part of Yugoslavia, has been admitted. There are more socialist countries in the United Nations now than there are democracies - shifting the balance of power in the General Assembly.
When the United States sought support for its invasion of Iraq, it turned to the United Nations and several powers, including the Soviet Union, to unify public opinion. At that time President George Bush referred to such operations as the New World Order. But the Iraqi War was not the driving force for the New World Order, it was the first public showing of such an Order. Going along with the concept of the New World Order, United Nations troops are becoming more active - in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti and in Cambodia. President Bush even signed an Executive Order in April 1992 permitting United Nations troops to operate within the boundaries of the United States to quell domestic or international violence that might occur here.
Where did President Bush gain the authority for such an Executive Order? The authority can be found in the First Session of the 97th Congress in Senate Treaty Document No. 97- 19. On January, 17, 1980, while President Jimmy Carter was still in the White House, the President and Senate confirmed the Constitution of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
ARTICLE 2 OF UNITED NATIONS LAW
The Preamble, Article I (Objectives) and Article 2 (Functions), defines the entire concept of the New World Order - eight years before the election of President Bush and 10 months before the election of Ronald Reagan. The foreign Constitution states that the intent of the New World Order is to "direct, control, finance and subsidize all natural and human resources and agro-related, as well as basic industries...through dynamic social and economic changes...with a view to assisting in the establishment of a new international economic order." The Preamble creates an oligarchy who will establish "rational and equitable international economic relations". United States currency and coin, used by most standards, would no longer be stabilized nor assured of its value. A new economic standard would be implemented. An example of this type of shifting can be seen in Europe with the establishment of the Euro Dollar, which forced several European nations to devalue their currency. The United Nations Industrial Development Organization does not call for general elections. A total of 45 members are elected to a Board of Directors by the General Assembly. There is no guarantee the larger, more industrial nations will be represented on the Board.
Since the President and the Senate approved the U N. Constitution, many laws have been created in this nation under the guise of Executive Orders or, for example, the Crime Bill of 1991, allowing more power to the President in time of domestic or international emergency. Senate Report 93-549 states: "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may; seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora or particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
There has been much debate focused on whether the American people would allow such drastic measures to be taken. Most experts agree that it would take an extraordinary crisis in order for any President to invoke such non-Democratic measures. The criterion of an emergency has not been defined in any law, but it provides for domestic, international or even just monetary threat to allow the activation of such harsh controls. If the American people, in general, believed that such a crisis was that acute, the ability to invoke such measures would be made easier. Obviously, there would be some pockets of resilience. Though there have been such laws on the books since President Richard Nixon helped to shape them, no President has invoked them nor even threatened publicly to do so. But any given President at any given time has the power and the resources to invoke such laws. Under regulations approved by Congress, such laws could be invoked without their consultation or approval, and Congress would not be allowed to review such actions until six months after they had been activated. In the Crime Bill of 1991, Congress provided similar powers that allow for the construction of detention camps, the rounding up of aliens and U.S. citizens, the suspending of habeas corpus - Constitutional law protecting against illegal detention - and the right to declare martial law in the event of a "drug crisis".
Senate Report 93-549 concedes, "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years freedoms and government procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. Nixon declared a state of emergency in 1973 and there are no documents to support that the emergency was lifted. Much of the foreground of the "emergency" has been the atomic age. The fear of massive nuclear attack set a series of emergency agencies and laws into effect. The main purpose was to assure the continuity of government in the case of a nuclear attack survival, pure and simple, of the American government. But in placing such regulations into the survival scenario, what the United States government did was to protect government officials and offices, but not the survival or assurances of the democratic processes. The intent was to be able to survive a nuclear attack and retaliate. Saving democratic principles was of less concern than preventing an aggressor, who launched the nuclear attack, to win an undeclared war in a matter of minutes. A nuclear counterattack would have been met with a second nuclear strike, met in turn by a second counterattack.
Today, that emergency level has shifted away from the nuclear attack scenario and focused instead on economic problems and the potential of civilian unrest within the United States. The Executive Orders, transfer of power to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Crime Bill of 1991, and United States ratification of the United Nations Constitution in 1980, all commence to usurp the rights of Americans guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. The seizure laws, gun control measures, emergency legislation, all eke away at Constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens.
President John F. Kennedy attempted lo shift the economic power base away from the independent Federal Reserve Board and back to Congress. Under the Constitution, only Congress sha11 have the right to coin money. Yet if you look at every bill in your wallet, you will see that it is a Federal Reserve Note. Kennedy signed an Executive Order in 1963, directing the monetary system of this nation be placed back into the Constitutional hands of Congress. He was assassinated within three weeks of that order and President Lyndon Johnson rescinded the order within a week of taking office. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation, on his retirement from the Presidency, not to trust the powers that were building - the military-industrial complex. The changes in our fundamental freedoms have, as the Senate stated, been eroded in some form for 40 years.
The public documentation exists on these erosions, but few individuals have sought them out and few people of influence have bothered to inform the public of these basic changes. The corporate-owned media has sat quietly by on the sidelines, reviewing profits and not public priority. America has been gradually shifting, laws have been created over four decades that have established the machinery for massive Presidential authority in any time of undefined emergency.
The only question that remains is: Will the day and the person come that will see the implementation of these laws? George Washington's vision foresees foreign troops on American soil and the eventual triumph of the people of this land. Lincoln says destruction can only come from within.
America - wither goest thou?

Is the U.N. Outdated?

How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the US 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the US 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against the US 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the US 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the US 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the US 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the US 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the US 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the US 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the US 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the US 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the US 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the US 80% of the time.
India votes against the US 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the US 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the US 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate the USA:
Egypt votes 79% of the time against the US and receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the US and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the US and receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the US and receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY?
Is it time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers?

Faith Hope and Charity

Obama gave Hope,

People had Faith,

Now many folks are dependent on Charity.

And the one-time PM of Australia Concurs

Prime Minister John Howard - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said
Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia ."
"However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."
"This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle." "This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom" "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.""We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live inharmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."
"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Is Peace-Loving Islam a Threat?

I know how busy you all are playing games and tending your farmyard but take 5 minutes to read the article. Even better respond with a comment...positive or negative but for god's sake do something, don't just sit there while the world implodes around you.

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

Speech at the Four Seasons, New York
September 25, 2008
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.
It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.
My short lecture consists of 4 parts.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.
Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.
Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.
This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.
This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.
This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.
These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:
“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.