Sunday, September 2, 2012

As Detroit has gone, so will America under Obama's Democrat Party

Since 1960, Detroit has been ruled by the Democratic Party. In particular, its been ruled by the African- American wing of the Democratic Party, which came to power through the Civil Rights movement. These Detroit politicians have imposed their taxes and plans on the city, in progressively more authoritian ways. The result has been a complete collapse of civil society. A huge percentage of the hard - working,, honest people fled the city, leaving those who remained to be preyed upon by a government nearly consumed by avarice, greed, and corruption. The situation was further powered by the economic might of the major car companies, which themselves had been captured, in effect, by the Democratic Party's union operatives. Detroit lost 80% of it's population and nearly all it's working and middle classes. What was left was the poorest' most violent city in America.

George Bivins
2545300
georgebi@windstream.net
See my blogs  -  www.gradycountynewa.blogspot.com

Friday, June 22, 2012

Farmers Learn Hard Way How Agenda 21 Affects Them

Conspiracy, Capital C: Michigan Farmers Learn Hard Way How Agenda 21 Affects Them
by

03312012ObamaLiberals love to dismiss any talk of a global plan to take over small farms and destroy private ownership as “conspiracy theory.”
Michigan farmers are starting to learn that there’s nothing theoretical about it and the conspiracy is quite real.
NaturalNews.com reports that the state’s Department of Natural Resources recently conducted at least two armed raids on pig farmers, including bringing the entire goon squad of at least six vehicles and about a dozen armed officers.
Were the farmers criminals?
According to the DNR they were, and the raids included felony arrest warrants. But the actual crime was … raising pigs.
Under an “invasive species order,” or ISO, the state of Michigan has declared the pig farmers’ livestock to be an invasive species, and the raids were planned for the purpose of killing said pigs.
Farmer Dave Tuxberry reported slaughtering all of his pigs in advance of the DNR raids, hoping to avoid arrest. But according to NaturalNews, the DNR conducted the raid anyway, tossing the place and generally doing the jack-booted thug thing.
After four hours, the DNR officers decided that all the pigs were indeed dead, and they gave the farmer papers to the effect that he was no longer breaking the law because he was out of business.
Another farmer reported the interrogation of his customers, and he says his regular meat processor was so terrorized that she will no longer take his pigs for fear her company will be raided, but the loss of business will cause her severe financial harm.
The invasive species order issued by the state declares that nearly all small family farms raising open-range pigs are engaged in illegal activity. The pigs are declared to be “wild hogs” under the ISO, distinguished by their hair type. Raising pigs of the wrong hair color is punishable by up to four years in prison.
Wrap your head around that for a moment. First, how can a hog be “wild” if it’s being “raised”? And now it’s criminal to even have one of these evil creatures in your possession.
The farms, most of which have been in business for decades, are competition to “Big Pork,” in this case the Michigan Pork Producers Association, which explains the ISO on its website.
This is straight out of Agenda 21, the United Nations’ plan for global “sustainable development.” Part of that plan aims for the elimination of small farms as a waste of resources.
It also seeks a reduction of the population. And if you’re going to do that, targeting the diversity of a nation’s food supply could be a good way to start.
Nationally, the federal Department of Transportation has been going after family farms by reclassifying most farm vehicles as commercial vehicles, requiring anyone driving a tractor to invest in training and a commercial drivers license, and placing the equipment under laws intended for semi-trucks driven on the road. It would also ban young, underage farmers from using a tractor.
Note that the DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the recently created White House Rural Council, which has ties to George Soros and the Center for American Progress.
The EPA, of course, is getting in on the act, taking small farms as “buffer zones” for waterways to protect them from pesticides. Under Agenda 21, these areas are designated as not inhabitable by humans, as detailed by the Wildlands Project.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is on the Rural Council, which was established, according to President Obama, “to strengthen rural communities and promote economic growth.”

George Bivins
georgebi@windstream.net
2292545300
www.gradycountynews.blogspot.com

Monday, June 18, 2012

Ban on UN Agenda 21



Monday, 04 June 2012 09:25

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

Written by
    Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21
    Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.
    The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.
    Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

    "The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

    The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

    Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

    “This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government,” explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

    Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill — almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

    The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

    “Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there’s strings attached,” explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. “We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?”

    But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor’s office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

    “It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” remarked Justice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. “Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state.”

    Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

    “Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law,” noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. “Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty.”

    Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an “insidious” and “socialist” plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

    A bill similar to Alabama’s seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN “sustainability” efforts in Arizona was approved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

    Meanwhile, local governments across America — under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups — are slowly awakening to what critics call the “dangers” of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

    The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called “Conference on Sustainable Development” — known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

    Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people’s thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called “green economy,” the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.

    Related articles:

    Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State

    Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21

    Kansas Lawmakers Seek Resolution Against “Insidious” UN Agenda 21

    EPA's Plans for Implementing UN's Agenda 21

    What are the UN's Agenda 21 and ICLEI?

    Texas City Withdraws From ICLEI, UN “Agenda 21”

    UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order
    Photo: Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley speaks in Montgomery, Ala.: AP Images

    Wednesday, May 23, 2012

    Sno-Cone Machines - Terrorism?

    Homeland Security Buys Sno-Cone Machines to Fight Terrorism

    Written by Gary North on May 23, 2012



    Terrorists will stop at nothing to bring America down. But the Department of Homeland Security is up to the challenge.

    The latest threat is heat exhaustion. This is especially a threat in West Michigan. So, in preparation for this ruthless attack on West Michigan, the DHS has bought 13 ice-making machines.

    And not just any ice-making machines. It has bought Sno-Cones, the Cadillac of ice-making machines. No expense should be spared to protect residents of West Michigan.

    The machines that went to 13 counties — including Kent, Ionia, Muskegon, Ottawa and Newaygo — are Arctic Blast Sno-Cone makers that can, according to one sales list, shave 500 pounds of ice per hour.

    The 13 ice machines cost a total $6,200, according to the West Shore Regional Planning Commission, which administers the grant money.

    The written justification of the funding insists that the “machines will assist with treating the onset of heat exhaustion and stroke during large scale events or activities including possible terrorist incidents or similar emergencies.”

    The narrative also says local emergency managers believe they can use the Sno-Cone machines to produce ice quickly to help cool down suffering patients.

    The Deputy Fire Chief who chairs the Regional Homeland Security Planning Board has explained that the machines have a useful purpose.

    “In the event of an emergency where there is great heat for extended period of time, it does provide a means for ice packs for responders, for volunteers to stay hydrated in a different way than bottled water, and it is portable.”

    He added that local emergency management agencies can use the Sno-Cone machines as an attraction at public functions where they are trying to recruit volunteers.

    There is nothing like a Sno-Cone to recruit volunteers to keep America safe from terrorists.

    I know I will sleep better, knowing that West Michiganers are safer.
    Next week, maybe central Georgians will be safer, too. I’m hoping.



    How’s that for regional planning Charlie? What a crock.

    Sunday, May 13, 2012

    The Delphi Technique


    The Delphi Technique: Let’s Stop Being Manipulated!

    More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.
    Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
    You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
    Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
    Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.
    The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.
    However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.
    How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.
    First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.
    It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”
    Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.
    The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
    At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.
    Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.
    Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.
    This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize. Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.
    How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You Don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion.
    Rarely does anyone challenge the process, since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others.
    So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants and the rest of the community that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation.
    Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.
    The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained before the meeting took place, why have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique.
    It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is theirs! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized!
    If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it.
    If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
    This very effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy." Now, citizens chosen at large are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now theirs! The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say “Conspiracy?”
    These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” can be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them.
    Because it is so important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column. One: Never, never lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.
    Two: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made.
    These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to their agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is not what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.
    Three: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and reread the previous column.)
    Four: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.) Don’t go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person ”armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. Don’t sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.
    When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering your question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point.
    They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did not really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor.
    To quote my informant: “Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats. And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face.”
    Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.