Thursday, July 31, 2014

Hamas is attacking.
Israel is defending.
Russia is invading.
The Middle East is smoldering.
Boko Haram is massacring. ...
ISIS is marching.
Iran and N Korea are threatening.
American cities are crumbling.
Our southern border is dissolving.
Our debt is skyrocketing.
Benghazi is unresolved.
NSA is spying.
Americans are hurting.
Our enemies are laughing.
Our allies are unbelieving.
Fuel prices are skyrocketing.
IRS is being investigated.
Deserters are being traded for American-killers.
Obama is fundraising.

Hamas is attacking.  
Israel is defending.  
Russia is invading.  
The Middle East is smoldering.  
Boko Haram is massacring.  
ISIS is marching.  
Iran and N Korea are threatening.  
American cities are crumbling.  
Our southern border is dissolving.  
Our debt is skyrocketing.  
Benghazi is unresolved.
NSA is spying.
Americans are hurting.  
Our enemies are laughing.  
Our allies are unbelieving.
Fuel prices are skyrocketing.
IRS is being investigated.
Deserters are being traded for American-killers.
Obama is fundraising.

Kerry Trying To Save Hamas, Restore Muslim Brotherhood


Iran and Germany: A 100-Year Old Love Affair

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

I have always thought that without Christianity Western Civilization would not be as it is today. Natural Law and the U.S. Constitution was based on the tenets of Christianity. For instance, "All men are created equal and endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property)" was based on the tenets of Christianity, which was also embedded in Natural Law. Enza Ferreri, an Agnostic, talks about this, and about the vast difference between Christianity and Islam, and our Marxist culture which has served to squash the importance of Christianity to Western Civilization. It's worth listening to her as she explains this further. Please let me know which parts of her brief talk meant the most to you, and pass it on. 

 I have to disagree with one thing that she said. Some experts on the subject of Islam. who have read the thick books that no one else will read, like Bill Warner, would disagree that Rome was destroyed by the barbarians. They would say that Rome was destroyed by Islam's aggressive battles against everyone who wouldn't submit to it.  ~

 Here's an excerpt from her talk:

 "We know much more about Islam than about Christianity.Now I've been an Atheist almost all my life. I've become an Agnostic less than a year ago when I realized that the reason why many people are opposed to many Atheists are opposed to the belief in God which is the reason they deduce is there is not enough evidence for the belief in God could also be the argument against Atheism. Because when you say there is no Creator because that doesn't explain the origin of the Universe by means of a Creator you are automatically subscribing to the alternative view which is that everything happens by chance that the Universe came about by accident and that has got less evidence than the belief in God. 

 Let's put the belief in God aside. We all know that we have a problem with Islam but we should understand for instance that the idea has failed has had many problems exactly because it starts from only that you can't it's just a spontaneous reaction against Islam but without a grasp of the problem and but the ground to understand it and face it Islam is not the problem it is a symptom of a desease and the desease is cultural Marxism. Now we wouldn't have any problem of Islam if the West were strong from within. It's like the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was destroyed by the barbarians from outside but more than anything it was destroyed from some weakness from inside from the divisions within it. And the same applies to the West and Islam. The same way as Rome versus the barbarians.The West's superiority and the greatest trend is such that Islam wouldn't trouble us at all if we didn't have the division within the West which are caused by cultural Marxism which is the reincarnation of Marxism in the 20th Century..." Listen to the rest on the video.
WASHINGTON – Somewhere around the world, another Christian is martyred, on average, every three hours, according to a new report that concludes nations where radical Muslims are abundant are the worst places for Christians to live.

The new World Watch Top 10 Violence List published by Open Doors International said the majority of the cases in which Christians are killed because of their faith are in Nigeria, Syria and the Central African Republic.

“The alarming increase of vi...olence against Christians in Nigeria over the past months highlights the lack of religious freedom they have and the daily dangers they face from the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram and other violent Islamic organizations,” said David Curry, president of Open Doors USA.

Curry added: “Going to school, attending church or identifying yourself as a Christian is a very brave decision in Nigeria. It is turning into a bloodbath. Christians in the West must stand in the gap with our prayers and support.”

The World Watch Top 10 Violence List is a continuation of the Open Doors 2014 World Watch List, covering the violence portion of the World Watch List questionnaire. The report looks at the nations where there is the most violence, up to and including murder, against Christians.
It is based on attacks between Nov. 1, 2012, and March 31, 2014, and lists Nigeria, Syria, Egypt, Central African Republic, Mexico, Pakistan, Colombia, India, Kenya and Iraq, in that order.
Observers might be surprised to find North Korea, the 2014 World Watch List’s No. 1 worst persecutor of Christians, absent from the Top 10 Violence List.

“When it comes to counting the numbers of Christians martyred, it is impossible to get an accurate number for North Korea,” said Jan Vermeer, Open Doors field worker for North Korea. “This is not because there are no Christians being killed for their faith. It is a fact that thousands of Christians are starved, abused and tortured in North Korea’s extensive prison system. But due to an inability to derive sufficiently accurate figures about the reasons for killing Christians in this most secretive society, North Korea is excluded from the total number of killings.”

In countries where Christians are persecuted, researchers recorded 3,641 churches and Christian properties destroyed and 13,120 other forms of violence against Christians such as beatings, abductions, rapes, arrests and forced marriages.
Open Doors researchers said
Nigeria topped the list of faith-related killings with a total of 2,073 Christian martyrs, followed by
Syria with 1,479,
Central African Republic 1,115,
Pakistan 228,
Egypt 147,
Kenya 85,
Iraq 84,
Burma 33,
Sudan 33
Venezuela 26.
 Photo: WASHINGTON – Somewhere around the world, another Christian is martyred, on average, every three hours, according to a new report that concludes nations where radical Muslims are abundant are the worst places for Christians to live.

The new World Watch Top 10 Violence List published by Open Doors International said the majority of the cases in which Christians are killed because of their faith are in Nigeria, Syria and the Central African Republic.

“The alarming increase of violence against Christians in Nigeria over the past months highlights the lack of religious freedom they have and the daily dangers they face from the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram and other violent Islamic organizations,” said David Curry, president of Open Doors USA.

Curry added: “Going to school, attending church or identifying yourself as a Christian is a very brave decision in Nigeria. It is turning into a bloodbath. Christians in the West must stand in the gap with our prayers and support.”

The World Watch Top 10 Violence List is a continuation of the Open Doors 2014 World Watch List, covering the violence portion of the World Watch List questionnaire. The report looks at the nations where there is the most violence, up to and including murder, against Christians.

It is based on attacks between Nov. 1, 2012, and March 31, 2014, and lists Nigeria, Syria, Egypt, Central African Republic, Mexico, Pakistan, Colombia, India, Kenya and Iraq, in that order.

Observers might be surprised to find North Korea, the 2014 World Watch List’s No. 1 worst persecutor of Christians, absent from the Top 10 Violence List.

“When it comes to counting the numbers of Christians martyred, it is impossible to get an accurate number for North Korea,” said Jan Vermeer, Open Doors field worker for North Korea. “This is not because there are no Christians being killed for their faith. It is a fact that thousands of Christians are starved, abused and tortured in North Korea’s extensive prison system. But due to an inability to derive sufficiently accurate figures about the reasons for killing Christians in this most secretive society, North Korea is excluded from the total number of killings.”

In countries where Christians are persecuted, researchers recorded 3,641 churches and Christian properties destroyed and 13,120 other forms of violence against Christians such as beatings, abductions, rapes, arrests and forced marriages.

Open Doors researchers said 
Nigeria topped the list of faith-related killings with a total of 2,073 Christian martyrs, followed by 
Syria with 1,479, 
Central African Republic 1,115, 
Pakistan 228, 
Egypt 147, 
Kenya 85, 
Iraq 84, 
Burma 33, 
Sudan 33  
Venezuela 26.

The Convention of States

When I learned there was a new push for a Constitutional Convention – a concon, I was not surprised. Many of us involved in defeating the last big push twenty years ago had been expecting it. We new our victory had only been defensive and had left “the powers that be” to try again. But I was surprised for a moment when I learned it was called “The Convention of States” because the earlier attempt called “The Conference of States” had the same acronym – COS.

The question occurred to me, could this be a second attempt not only to get a con-con, but an attempt to get the specific changes they failed to get with the first COS. Those who orchestrate such attempts have often cryptically announced what they are actually doing.

My suspicions increased to a near certainty when I learned that the new COS is “a project of Citizens for Self Governance” – CSG, because the earlier COS was “a project of the Council of State Governments” – an earlier CSG. I never would have come to this perception if not for the battle I was engaged in against the first COS twenty years ago, and observing the strange doings of the powers behind the scenes during that time.

To confirm my suspicions I began to compare the two COS efforts for similarities and differences. Particularly striking is the involvement of former Gov. Michael Leavitt in the new COS, who was the head of the earlier COS. The same justification of federal abuses is being used again, and again the same kind of money trail, one paved with support from deep corporate pockets leads to both. There are other similarities but what is most revealing are the differences.

When the two COS efforts are seen as just two different sales approaches, the differences are just cosmetic and do not suggest any difference in substance. After the defeat of COS-I I remember thinking “Next time they will try through the people.” This is what the new COS actually claims to be doing. Its promotional material claims they are organizing a “grass roots” movement, but this new effort is top down and centrally pre-planned – the opposite of the bottom up, spontaneous nature of real grass roots movements.

All con-con efforts attempt to gain state support because only the states can convene a con-con. The first COS concentrated upon the state legislatures through the Council of State Governments, the first CSG. The second COS seeks to put pressure on the states to call for a con-con by the appearance of popular demand through the Citizens for Self Governance, the second CSG. The two efforts are not meant to be associated in the public mind, which is a reasonable expectation as most are totally unaware of the first effort. For those who know of COS I and COS II, the two are meant to appear to be unrelated. The first COS denied it was attempting to get a con-con but promoted specific amendments it hoped to attain to state legislators. The second COS admits it is trying to get a con-con, but does not admit to having any specific amendments as it goal. Constitutional conventions are just means to an end. The very idea that those behind both COS efforts would expend such time, effort and money without a very specific agenda to get a specific goal is absurd. In the case of both COS efforts the specific means is a con-con, and the specific end must be very specific amendments to create very specific changes to the Constitution.

The first COS effort failed because a true grass roots movement revealed to enough state legislators that it could become a con-con. But this is not because they feared a con-con, they believe they have power over who is sent to a concon, and they will decide whether to ratify its proposed amendments. The first COS effort failed because it lost the trust of state legislators. Promoters of COS I had denied it was intended to be a con-con, and it failed despite the fact that these legislatures favored the amendments that were the centerpiece of COS I. They believed that these amendments would bolster their powers against federal abuses. They did not see that the opposite would be the effect.

The second COS could fail because it loses the trust of its customers like the first effort failed. The overall sales campaign of COS II is to create the perception of public support, whether real or imaginary. It could lose the trust of its own voluntary “grass roots” members. But this would not necessarily cause it to fail. If state legislatures believe there is broad enough public support for COS II, and possibly even if they may know it to be an illusion but could justify themselves by claiming broad public support, COS II may succeed. The states are more desperate now that twenty years ago, and they still hold the belief they had of their powers over con-cons. Many legislators sincerely believe there is no other way to gain relief for the states and the people.

If the COS II sales campaign succeeds in creating the perception of broad public support, it will likely succeed in getting its con-con. If it succeeds in getting its con-con, the specific amendments that have been the true objective of the overall COS effort are very likely to be ratified. Once ratified, the effects will end the greatest powers of the states replacing it with a Constitutionally sanctioned parliamentary system and the people will see the republic replaced with a Constitutionally sanctioned democracy. The last vestiges that made America
constitutionally distinct will be brought into conformity with the parliamentary democracies that now predominate in most of the world. This uniformity will ease the task of directly imposing international law upon the states and the people, and will make the merger of America into the “new world order” actually constitutional.

It is only just that all parties be fully informed in every agreement, especially in lawfully binding agreements, and none more so than something so fundamental and powerful as con-cons. The lawyers that led the first COS effort, just as those who lead the current one, as well as those who planned its strategies and its amendments are all guilty of great deceptions. Highly polished practitioners of the art of rhetoric, their statements are “technically” true, but very misleadingly incomplete. This technique of manipulation by omission has left both the states and the people in a confusing state of half-truths, and can explain why neither of them understand some very fundamental things that are necessary to see what
the entire COS effort is actually attempting.

Some Fundamental Principles

The American people and their state legislators are ignorant of what their counterparts knew and often took for granted 200 years ago. This is due to the deliberate omission of these principles. Since the COS effort is our focus, it is vital to understand the ones given here.


Suffrage has come to mean election or the vote, but the vote is only one of three fundamental suffrage rights, and is the least of them. As far as elections go the vote determines who is chosen for office. Far more important is what that person does. The second suffrage right is called “instruction”. The suffrage right of “instruction” did not mean the educating of the representative in office. It meant the right of a constituency to give authoritative commands to them because the office they are in is in the name and ownership of the constituency, and the office holder can act only under their authority. This is an amazingly simple and powerful suffrage right, but somehow none of the law dictionaries even have an entry for “instruction”, although it is unavoidably mentioned under other headings for example in Blackʼs Law Dictionary, under “authority” and under “limited authority”, when an agent is bound by precise instructions. The third fundamental suffrage right is called “recall”. This is the enforcement of the other two, but especially instruction. Of the three suffrage rights, instruction is the one most omitted, because nothing threatens the rule by elites more than the people or the states being able to take command of what an office holder does at any time, and to hold the office holder responsible if such instructions are disobeyed.


Republics are those in which the people have full suffrage rights. Those that believed elitest rule is the best or most stable or wisest have long obfuscated this principle for example, by condemning pure republics and advocating “mixed forms” of government. But it can easily and accurately be said that unless all three suffrage rights exist, then the form of government isnʼt a republic at all.


Democracies were invented as a replacement for republics. They consist of forms of government that have removed or denied part of the suffrage rights. Democracies omit the right of instruction and sometimes recall. Democracies have come to be identified with the vote. Ideally to the elitist within a democracy is the illusion of power it creates for the voters, who often blame themselves for having voted such scoundrels into power. This belief is due to their ignorance of the suffrage rights.


Parliaments are “mixed forms” of government which are partially democracies and partially elitist. What Americanʼs came to think a parliamentary form was 200 years ago was based upon what England had at the time – a hereditary monarch, and an aristocratic House of Lords, and a democratic House of Commons. A parliamentary form of government is based in part on the authority of the people, who delegate all of their authority to their representatives as a kind of preauthorization of whatever that government may do. The various levels of government in America function as if they were some version of democratic parliament. What neither the people nor the states are aware of is there is a long unused but fully constitutional power within the constitution, and the constitutions of many states, that could end all federal abuses and the ongoing elitist rule. This power is centered on the suffrage rights and especially the right of instruction.

State Suffrage

This is the only constitutional provision that cannot be amended, making it the most powerful and important provision in the Constitution, especially for the states. No other provision is so hated by all that would destroy the states and centralize power and no other provision has been so deliberately pushed “down the memory hole”. It is found in the final clause of article V – the amending article, because only it cannot be amended.

Notably, Constitutional lawyer and head of COS II, Michael Farris, who is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and its history is a sterling example of manipulation by omission, or half-truths. He states “article V is the solution”; “the correct path can be found in article V” – which is true. Then he then omits State “Suffrage in the Senate”, which is that very power. He only addresses the amending processes in the rest of Article V as if the final clause did not exist.

Three “Process” Amendments

The entire COS effort is based on half-truths, and depends upon the ignorance produced by this over the years. Because COS I was omitting that it was meant to become a con-con it had to reveal the three process amendments as examples of what COS I would accomplish. These are the most specific measures we have of the entire COS effort. It is the effects of these kinds of measures that point to the real goal of the COS effort. Above all else this goal is omitted in both COS I and COS II.

The three amendments all target the state suffrage rights, and are designed to appeal to state legislatures. Rather than quote them here, I will try to explain them.

1) 10th Amendment litigation – The 10th Amendment is what was most demanded to be added to the Constitution by the states. It is the strongest limitation on federal power in the Constitution. It was meant to preserve all the powers that the states had previously under the Articles of Confederation, except those denied by the Constitution or delegated to the federal government. In the world of half-truths, the ignorant state legislatures kept trying to sue the federal government in federal court for treading on their powers. The Supreme Court often refused to hear these suits, or if it did would tell them to rely on “the political process” instead of the Courts. This frustrated the ignorant states. The COS amendment to the 10th Amendment would mandate the Federal Courts hear these cases. The effect would be the federal government deciding whether itself was in violation of the 10th Amendment. This would end the 10th Amendment. Completely unknown to the state legislatures and almost every one else, is the fact that one of the 10th Amendment rights of the states is the suffrage right of recall.

The other two “process amendments” are both targeted at the state suffrage right of instruction.

2) States Initiative – Three quarters of the states could amend the constitution unless congress vetoed these amendments.

3) States Veto – Three quarters of the states could repeal federal laws and regulations unless congress vetoed it.

These two are based on the ignorance of state legislatures of their own state suffrage right of instruction, which is specifically over their two senators in Congress. It is so great that they could paralyze the federal government if necessary to get amendments proposed or end bad laws and regulations etc. And it does not risk the unpredictable results of a con-con. These two amendments are not only unnecessary, but coupled with the other one could totally subvert state suffrage rights without amending them. This would finally accomplish what the direct election of U.S. senators began – the end of state suffrage rights. States could no longer function except as an agency of the federal government, and the federal government would no longer be federal. Coupled with the false belief that “suffrage” means only election, what would be left would be a parliamentary democracy and “the republic” would end – and it would be “constitutional”.

The history of the effort to institute parliamentary democracy finds its beginnings in the con-con that drafted the constitution, and is addressed in part two. (Coming soon)
The American Revolution: War for Instruction
It is vital to the ambitions of empire builders, to control what a people believe. Ultimately belief controls all things in the world of man. Some of the beliefs that threaten the ambition of empire have required generations to subvert. Those beliefs that are most threatening are those that can reappear at any time, because they are based on such simple principles. These simple principles are so threatening because even if the memory of them has been effectively subverted, their obvious nature can give rise again to the same beliefs. Of such are the suffrage rights of election, instruction and recall that all Americans were aware of at one time. As long as government claims its powers and authority actually belong to the people, there remains the threat the people may use that authority to quickly undo all the “progress” that took the empire builders so much time, money and effort to put into place. In this case, it is the power of instruction that is the most threatening.

The English Experience

By the time of America’s war with England, the biggest differences between the two peoples were the conflicting beliefs between them. This was the result of their very different circumstances and experiences. The English were experiencing a period of relative stability that none could be certain would last. They had shared with the peoples of Europe the unavoidable effects of the very long history of the clash of religious empires, kings, and moneyed interests; and likely would again. The resulting wars, invasions, revolutions and economic deprivations produced in very large numbers of Europeans a deep-seated and not unreasonable impression that the common people had little power. It is no surprise they would be satisfied with mere election in a parliamentary form of government. In England every effort that could have given the people more power either failed, or was just rhetoric, or was subverted. The parliamentary form was even seen as a victory.

The English Ideal

England had experienced a growing wealth in the middle classes, who were being accommodated by Parliament. These “middling classes” imitated the mannerisms of their “superiors” demonstrating their aspirations of equality with them. They were benefiting under the myth of “parliamentary supremacy” and had no interest in changing it but were loyal to it. England’s King, Lords and Commons parliament was idealized by prominent political philosophers as “perfect”. In actuality it was only a compromise between centers of power with the people being given election to keep them complacent and supporting the partially elected tyranny over them. At that point it was a tyranny that benefited a growing number of people. But few recognized it as such.

The belief in Parliament also produced a pride in England’s conquests. Like the Romans had justified their conquest as bringing civilization to a barbaric world, the parliamentary system was believed to be the ideal of civilization and was used to justify the budding British Empire.

The American Experience

The experience of Americans was also born out of the competing powers of Europe. Although the European powers had failed to establish a permanent dominance over America, possibly any of them could have done so if not for the ongoing competition between them and the resulting internal instabilities this created for them at home. Often the various colonies of these nations were left to entirely fend for themselves. Being left on their own in a wilderness setting created a brutal necessity for taking action voluntarily as a group in order to survive. This more than any political ideology began the practice of “republican principles” in America, even if most may not have recognized that this was what they were doing.

The Organic Origins of Republics

Long before names were given to forms of government, communities throughout history in similar circumstances have assembled and deliberated before acting in a unified effort in order to survive. These “deliberative assemblies” as they have since been named are the “organic” origins of “republics”. Individuals could be “elected” by the assembly to voluntarily perform certain vital and specific tasks. These specific tasks were the “instructions” agreed to by the assembly and those elected. The third suffrage right of “recall” would also naturally follow. Recall or resignation could follow if those elected either failed to, or found they could not, or would not perform the task entrusted to them.

The American Ideal

            Americans had also experienced a growing prosperity until England’s Board of Trade imposed policies that were destroying it. Seeing their prosperity being destroyed, and all their petitions failing, Americans grew angry. They began to seek what would make the King and Parliament so hostile to their subjects in America. Why have a king and parliament? America had gained its prosperity without them. And they had accomplished this in their republican assemblies under the suffrage rights of the people. These republican assemblies that had long been accepted as “ordinary” were becoming an ideal in the American mind.

A War of Beliefs

By the time of America’s formal separation from England, the beliefs of Americans and the English regarding their political (suffrage) rights had long since separated. For the English, parliamentary supremacy not only gave stability and growing prosperity but ultimately it promised the survival of England – learned in the world of man-made empires. For the Americans, their suffrage rights and republican assemblies were the sources of freedom and growing prosperity, and likewise meant the survival of America – learned in the wilderness of nature. For the people, the war was primarily a clash of beliefs.

The one issue that most separated these two beliefs was the suffrage right of instruction. During the 1600’s the right of instruction was hotly debated in England, and was used by the “country” party against the controlling “crown” party in Parliament. Circumstances produced the victory of the compromise of “the king in parliament”. When the Americans insisted that England’s interventions were violating the rights of “Englishmen”, they were above all referring to their suffrage rights, most especially the right of instruction as in the debates between “country” and “crown” parties. Circumstances in America had produced the victory of full suffrage rights in republican assemblies – a people in parliament ideology. Mere election – the pride of the Commons in Parliament, was too weak. After the war the belief can be seen in Jefferson’s comment, “An elected tyranny is not what we fought for”.

The American Heritage

What we are taught as the reason for the war was taxation. This is supposedly proven by the famous motto, “no taxation without representation”. But the statement is actually saying taxation would be accepted if they had representation. To Americans representation could only exist with all three suffrage powers over their representatives. At one point representatives were called “re-presenters”. They were elected and “presented” with instructions from their local republican assemblies. They were to “re-present” (present them again) to the larger assembly. If they could not do so, they could not participate in the larger assembly. Their instructions were their credentials.

Just how central instruction was to the beliefs of Americans is exemplified in the very signing of the Declaration of Independence that marks the official beginning of the war. Despite the fact that the war was already underway, the declaration was delayed long enough for two colonial states’ authorized delegates to return to their assemblies to get their instructions changed to vote for independence. This is what made it the Unanimous Declaration of Independence. This reflects the survival lesson from the wilderness, the necessity of taking voluntary group action for survival, and the indispensable importance of instruction. If anything can be called an American heritage, at least as distinguished from other European traditions, the republican assembly and the suffrage rights centering on the right of instruction is that heritage.

The Empire Returns

            America and the European nations were all born out of the clash of empires. America’s experience in relative isolation from the rest created its distinctive heritage and ideals. But this isolation ended, and the war for independence was a significant point for Americans that presents an example of the end of isolation “in the wilderness”. It resulted from England’s attempt to impose its Parliamentary dictatorship upon its American subjects, on the way to the conquest of the world under the British Empire. The current COS effort seeks to remove the last vestiges of America’s heritage and the republican ideal from the beliefs of Americans. As has been shown, this is far from the first attempt to subvert the beliefs of Americans from “within”. Empires are always ultimately top-down in structure far removed from bottom-up republican structures. The ambition of empire builders from “within” America may best be illustrated in the case of the drafting of the constitution. Once again, it is my intention to give this most significant example in the next section of this series.
Switzerland takes hard line on Kosovo organ-trafficking

Switzerland on Friday (17 December) called on Kosovo and the international community, including the European Union, to launch a legal probe into allegations of organ trafficking by Albanian independence fighters.

"The Swiss Foreign Ministry calls on the affected countries and particularly Kosovo for clarification on these accusations," the ministry said in a statement, quoted by AFP.
"The appropriate and international authorities must lead legal steps to assemble potential evidence," it added.

The ministry also called on the EU rule of law mission in Kosovo (EULEX) and its War Crimes Investigation Unit "to drive investigation" into the issue.

In a separate development, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey has reportedly decided not to receive an award given by the Kosovo Embassy and members of the Kosovo diaspora, for her contribution to the recognition of Kosovo's independence.
The award ceremony was planned to be held tomorrow (21 December) for her contribution to the recognition of Kosovo's independence.

A report by Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty, a former Swiss prosecutor, implicated Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi in organ trafficking (see Background). The report was released just days after the first general election held in Kosovo since the country declared independence in 2008.

The website of the Swiss daily 24 heures on Sunday quoted Mary saying that Thaçi has been prohibited from entering Switzerland "for a certain period of time".
Christa Markwalder, a Swiss Liberal politician and president of the Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, called for investigating allegations that sums originating from organ trafficking in Kosovo and Albania had been deposited in Swiss bank accounts.
In the presence of Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, the Swiss parliament’s Foreign affairs committee is expected to debate the accusations against Hashim Thaçi on 11 and 12 January.
Kosovo PM fumes at Western plan to investigate organ harvesting

Kosovo's premier has summoned parliament to vote on creating an EU-backed special court to try ethnic Albanian ex-guerrillas accused of harvesting organs from murdered Serbs during the Balkan state's 1990s war, but criticised the plan as an insult.
The move stems from a 2011 report by Council of Europe rapporteur, Dick Marty, alleging that Kosovo Albanian guerrillas fighting a war of independence from Serbia had smuggled the bodies of Serbs into Albania and removed their organs for sale

"This issue is completely unfair and an insult for the state of Kosovo," Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi​, who was the political chief of the old Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), said yesterday (17 April).
Thaçi said on Thursday that the assembly "should take a decision", signalling that the 120-seat parliament would have to vote on the new court possibly next week.

Political sources say Western diplomats have been pressing the Kosovo government to accept the tribunal and endorse it via a parliamentary vote before the assembly dissolves in a few weeks, for a general election to be held by September.

US and EU officials have warned Kosovo leaders that if they do not set up the court, then the organs case will be referred to the UN Security Council.

Thaçi has rejected Marty's accusations as an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the KLA, which won NATO air support in 1999, to help drive out Serbian security forces trying to crush the uprising in ethnic Albanian majority Kosovo.

Efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by guerrillas have run up against widespread intimidation in a small country where clan loyalties run deep and former KLA rebels are lionised.
The new court will operate under Kosovo law but most of its work will be done abroad, possibly in the Netherlands, in help protect witnesses from attack or intimidation. Both prosecutors and judges will be foreign citizens.

The allegations are being investigated by US prosecutor John Clint Williamson on behalf of the EU, which has a mission in Kosovo overseeing major war crimes and corruption cases. Williamson is expected to wrap up his work within months.

An estimated 10,000 people died during the 1998-99 war, the great majority of them ethnic Albanians. About 1,700 people are still missing from the conflict.
KLA guerrillas harvested murdered Serbs’ organs, say EU investigators

Kosovo Albanian guerillas murdered Serbs and sold their organs but there is not yet enough evidence to bring the guilty to justice, the chief prosecutor of an EU backed team of international investigators said today (29 July).

“There are compelling indications that this practice did occur […] and that a small number of individuals were killed for the purpose of extracting and trafficking their organs,” Clint Williamson told reporters at a Brussels news conference.

Despite rampant witness intimidation, the EU Special Investigative Task Force (SITF) has enough evidence to indict leaders of the former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) for other war crimes that left about 500 dead and 300 missing.

But no cases will be brought until an EU-backed special court is established to hear them. The indictments will remain sealed until that happens, hopefully early next year, and no further details of the investigation will be made public, Williamson said.

The SITF was set up to conduct an independent criminal investigation into war crime and organized crime allegations in a 2011 Council of Europe report by Swiss state prosecutor Dick Marty.
EU countries have stressed that full cooperation with the SITF is a condition of Kosovo’s eventual membership of the EU. The SITF works under the authority of the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo.

The Marty Report said current Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi was a mafia-like crime boss during the war, leading a group that committed assassinations, beatings, trafficking in organs and drugs and other crimes.
SITF’s investigations have largely backed the Marty Report's findings, Williamson said. But he refused to name any members of the KLA leadership – now lionized as heroes at home and in influential political positions – who faced prosecution.

Body parts

A “handful” of victims - “less than ten” - were butchered for their body parts by the KLA, Williamson said. Their bodies were smuggled from Serbia into Albania for harvesting.
He said, “In order to prosecute […] requires a level of evidence we have not yet secured. This is not to say that this evidence will not come together and we certainly continue to vigorously pursue it.
 “If even one person was subjected to such a horrific practice, and we believe a small number were, that is a terrible tragedy and the fact it occurred on a limited sale does not diminish the savagery of the crime.”
Reports that organ harvesting was more widespread or carried out on a significant number of ethnic minorities were inaccurate and caused huge pain to victims’ families, Williamson added.

War crimes
After the war ended in Kosovo in June 1999, KLA senior officials orchestrated a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Serb, Roma and other minorities living in Kosovo, and their political opponents. Crimes included murder, rape, disappearances, kidnapping, detention in concentration camps and the destruction of churches and religious sites.

 “The evidence is compelling that these crimes were not the acts of rogue individuals […] and were sanctioned by certain individuals in the top level of the KLA leadership,” Williamson said.
The investigation was hampered by a climate of witness intimidation said the chief prosecutor, who is a US lawyer and diplomat, and will leave the SITF on 23 August after three years.
“There is probably no single thing that poses more of a threat to the rule of law in Kosovo and its progress toward a European future than this pervasive practice,” he added.
The investigation was not an attempt to rewrite history. Many Kosovans joined the KLA with best of intentions and had come forward as witnesses to expose KLA leaders who used their positions to gain power and riches, Williamson said.

Special court
Today’s statement is a placeholder until a special court is established outside Kosovo. Cases will be heard under Kosovan law but outside the country. Because the crimes happened after the war they cannot be dealt with by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
It was unprecedented that an international special prosecutors’ office was set up with no viable court to file indictments, Williamson said.

Most steps were now complete and the Kosovo Assembly and government have committed to creating the court. Before it can begin work there are changes that need to be made to Kosovar law and that can only happen when a new Assembly is set up after the recent elections.
Hashim Thaçi’s Democratic Party of Kosovo took 30.38% of the June vote, gaining three seats and making it the largest party in the Assembly. It was founded in 1999 from the political wing of the KLA.

Thaçi's party argues it should form the government as winner of the elections but the opposition parties say only they have enough votes in the Assembly for a working majority.
Thaçi has preciously criticised the Marty Report branding it an unfair insult to his country.

Christopher Scott "Chris" Kyle (April 8, 1974 – February 2, 2013) was aUnited States Navy SEAL who claimed in his autobiography to be the most lethal sniper in American military history with 160 "confirmed" kills out of 255 claimed kills.

Kyle served FOUR tours in the second Iraq conflict and was awarded the 4th highest commendation awarded for acts of heroism, acts of merit, and/or meritorious service in a combat zone. He holds two Silver Stars, fivebronze stars with valor, two Navy and Marine CorpsAchievement Medals, and one Marine Corps Commendation. He was also awarded the Grateful Nation Award by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.Kyle also claimed that Iraqi insurgents dubbed him the "Devil of Ramadi" and placed a bounty for his head. He was wounded twice, and was involved in six IED attacks.

Kyle was honorably discharged from the US Navy in 2009.
Kyle left the US Navy in 2009 and moved to Midlothian, Texas, with his wife, Taya, and two children. He was President of Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military and Law Enforcement communities.In 2012, Harper Collins released Kyle's autobiographical book American Sniper.

Kyle also paired with FITCO Cares Foundation, a non-profit organization which created the Heroes Project to provide free in-home fitness equipment, individualized programs, personal training, and life-coaching to in-need veterans with disabilities, Gold Star families, or those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. On August 13, 2012, Kyle appeared on the reality televisionshow Stars Earn Stripes, which features celebrities pairing up with a special operations or law enforcement professional who will train them in weapons and combat tactics. Kyle was teamed with actor Dean Cain.

Kyle was a tough guy..... He was accosted by two robbers at a Dallas area gas station in 2010. According to Kyle, the two robbers were armed and asked for money as well as Kyle's truck. Kyle was able to divert the robbers' attention by claiming he had to find his keys, after which he shot an killed both robbers. According to this report, Kyle was released by police as having acted in self defense.

He remained in the spotlight after leaving the Navy and wrote a New York Times bestselling autobiography,American Sniper. Kyle was shot and killed at a shooting range on February 2, 2013, near Chalk Mountain, Texas. The man accused of killing him is awaiting trial for murder.
AT ISSUE: In interviews with both the Opie and Anthony Show andBill O'Reilly in January 2012, Kyle claimed to have punched former Minnesota Governor and UDT memberJesse Ventura at a bar in Coronado, California in 2006 during a wake for Mike Monsoor, a Navy SEAL andMedal of Honor recipient who had been killed in Iraq the same year. Kyle claimed that Ventura was "bad-mouthing the war, bad-mouthing (former President) Bush, bad-mouthing America" and that Ventura said the SEALs "deserved to lose a few guys".

James George Janos(born July 15, 1951), better known by his stage name, Jesse Ventura, is an American politician, actor, author, naval veteran, and former professional wrestler who served as the 38thGovernor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003.

 Born James George Janos, Ventura served as a U.S. Navy Underwater Demolition Team member during the period of the Vietnam War.[5] After leaving the military, he embarked on a professional wrestling career from 1975 to 1986, taking the ring name Jesse "The Body"Ventura. He had a long tenure in the World Wrestling Federation as a performer and color commentator, and was inducted into the Federation's Hall of Fame in 2004.Ventura also pursued a film career, appearing in films such as Predator (1987).

Ventura first entered politics as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, from 1991 to 1995. Four years after his mayoral term ended, Ventura was the Reform Partycandidate in the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 1998, running a low-budget campaign centered on grassroots events and unusual ads that urged citizens not to "vote for politics as usual". Ventura's campaign was successful, with him narrowly and unexpectedly defeating both the Democratic and Republican candidates. The highest elected official to ever win an election on a Reform Party ticket, Ventura left the Reform Party a year after taking office amid internal fights for control over the party.
He has publicly contemplated a run for President of the United States in 2016.
Ventura filed a defamation suit against Kyle in January 2012. Ventura initially considered dropping the lawsuit, but said several retired Navy SEALs including the owner of McP's demanded that Ventura continue his lawsuit, which Ventura did after Kyle failed to agree on a settlement in which he would state the incident never happened. In a motion filed by Kyle's attorney in August 2012 to dismiss two of the suit's three counts, declarations by five former SEALs and the mothers of two others supported Kyle's account. However, in a motion filed by Ventura, Bill DeWitt, a close friend of Ventura and former SEAL who was present with him at the bar, suggested that Ventura interacted with a few SEALs but was involved in no confrontation with Kyle, and said that Kyle's claims were false.

Two different sets of tough guys and a " bar story", right?
Nope, not when someone smells blood or money in the water.

Sued the widow and children of Chris Kyle and..... won.
A jury awarded former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura $1.8 million on Tuesday in his lawsuit against the estate of "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle.
Ventura was awarded $1.3 million for unjust enrichment, and $500,000 in damages for defamation, CBS station WCCO reports.
One minor detail........ Kris Klyle is dead and Ventura won a judgment against a man's widow and children. Although Ventura did not show up for the victory lap....... Ventura's family bought a round of pizza for the media who were gathered outside the courtroom.
They say Kyle's book “defamed” Ventura's character. I say Ventura defamed Ventura's character and in the interim …...... I wonder if he is still contemplating that run for the big office? The folks on the jury might vote for him.


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Obama Praises Muslims for “Building the Very Fabric of Our Nation”

Obama made the statement as Muslims around the world celebrate Eid-al-Fitr. In his remarks, Obama said, "Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to them and their families.  This last month has been a time of fasting, reflection, spiritual renewal, and service to the less fortunate."
"While Eid marks the completion of Ramadan, it also celebrates the common values that unite us in our humanity and reinforces the obligations that people of all faiths have to each other, especially those impacted by poverty, conflict, and disease."

No, it does not. The institute of Islam does not reinforce the obligations of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. In fact, Islam is expressly against Christianity and Judaism.
Mohamed taught his followers:
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"  No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." 
Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." 
And what if you are one of those self-proclaimed, non-existent "peaceful" Muslims? Well, the Quran has something for you too:
Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward…"
However, it was not just the lie that Obama told that stands out. He went on to state, "In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy."

Say, what? This smacks of the very nonsense that DHS adviser and imam Mohamed Elibiary tried to pass off as America being an Islamic nation, its Constitution being Islamic compliant and that Islam is the antidote to terrorism. Elibiary has claimed that Muslims have had a significant influence on the founding and fabric of the nation as well.

First, let's correct Obama. America is a republic, not a democracy.
Second, to claim that the fabric of America is made up from "achievements and contributions of Muslims" is not only factually incorrect, it is a blatant lie. Think back if you will. Name great achievements and contributions by Muslims to the fabric of America. Up until Rep. Keith Ellison's election, American never had a Muslim representative in Washington. Even more telling is that Ellison sits on the board of a Sodomite and gender confused organization! No my friends, Islam is not really a part of the fabric of America. It is a cancer to the soul of America.

What I wonder is why neither Obama or Elibiary will talk of the real influence of Islam upon the United States? Why are they silent on the Barbary Pirates? Why are they silent on the jizya imposed upon our nation during that same time? Why are they silent on Somali pirates who have taken our people hostage and murdered scores of Americans? I'll tell you why, it's called taqiyya (Muslim deception). Taqiyya is used to gain an advantage against unbelievers in order to overthrow them and advance the caliphate (Islamic state).

Finally, Obama tells a blatant lie that should turn the stomach of every Christian and Jew not only in America, but the world.

"That is why we stand with people of all faiths, here at home and around the world, to protect and advance their rights to prosper, and we welcome their commitment to giving back to their communities," Obama said.

He ended his statement with "Eid Mubarak," which is also known as Salat al-Eid and Salat-al-Eidain, which are the special prayer to commemorate the two Islamic festivals of Ramadan, which Obama has forced America's military to observe. Where is the Freedom from Religion Foundation on this? All I hear is crickets.

Does Obama look like he is standing for patriotic Americans who want the law to be followed and who have given their lives in the defense of America? Does he stand for those that adhere to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only Word of God? Does Obama look like he cares one bit for the tens of thousands of Christians being raped, pillaged, forced to pay Islamic taxes and murdered in the name of Allah? Does Obama seem to give a single thought to the thousands of Israelis who are constantly defending themselves from attack, yet he and his administration make them out to be the bad guys and want them to be the only ones making concessions while their enemies concede nothing?

No, my friend, Obama stands apart from all these people. He does not stand with "people of all faiths." He stand with the Muslims, period. And this should come as no surprise when Obama has only a 39% approval rating overall (still shocked at that number), but among Muslims, he has a 72% approval rating.

Obama’s EPA: Weapon of Choice in UN-backed War on Freedom

The exploitation of Native Americans to seize more power and land is not just a domestic issue — either in origin or scope. In February 2013, The New American magazine ran an article headlined “Exploiting Indians to Seize Land,” detailing elements of the planetary phenomenon. In 2006, after decades of negotiations, the dictator-dominated United Nations “Human Rights Council” adopted the so-called UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was approved by the despot-controlled UN General Assembly the next year.

At first, just four national governments — Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand — opposed the radical plot. All four eventually caved in. There was good reason to be skeptical, though. Article 26 of the document, for example, purports to mandate the recognition and return of indigenous peoples’ lands that are now lawfully owned by other citizens. “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” the document states, a position that several governments criticized when refusing to support the declaration. Considering the fact that Native Americans once “owned, occupied or otherwise used” virtually the entire American landmass, the radical implications of the agreement can hardly be emphasized strongly enough.

In Article 29, the document lays out a plot that bears remarkable similarities and parallels to the ongoing federal regulatory assaults under the guise of “Indian sovereignty” taking place across America. The article states that national governments “shall establish and implement” so-called environmental protection and conservation schemes on Indian lands — two of the key mechanisms exploited by opponents of private property, economic development, and national sovereignty to infringe on individual rights. How national regulations and supposed Indian “sovereignty” can coexist is never made clear. The EPA and other federal agencies, though, are working away “establishing and implementing” alleged “environmental” and “conservation” schemes in Indian country and beyond with the bought-and-paid-for collaboration of federally funded tribal governments.

Obama publicly announced that his administration was supporting the UN declaration at the end of 2010. Now, despite the fact that the U.S. Senate never ratified the agreement, Obama is apparently working to implement it — and doing so openly. “The United States intends to continue to work so that the laws and mechanisms it has put in place to recognize existing, and accommodate the acquisition of additional, land, territory, and natural resource rights under U.S. law function properly and to facilitate, as appropriate, access by indigenous peoples to the traditional lands, territories and natural resources in which they have an interest,” a State Department statement about the UN deal acknowledged.
According to the announcement, the Obama administration had already acquired more than 34,000 acres of land for Indians — a 225 percent increase from 2006.
The UN, though, wants still more, even making the Obama administration’s antics seem tame by comparison. In 2012, for example, the UN “Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People,” James Anaya, claimed that Americans should return vast tracts of land to Native Americans — including the iconic Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Such a move, he claimed, would help put the U.S. government closer into compliance with the so-called UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Americans may already be suffering, but a brief look at “indigenous” developments in Brazil paints a potentially far more horrifying future for the United States if the schemes are not reined in. As The New American reported in the February 2013 article, federal troops in Brazil wearing UN logos, acting under executive decrees from “former” communist terrorist President Dilma Rousseff, were caught evicting entire towns at gunpoint. “Where are we going to stay? Where are we going to live? What are we going to live off of? What are we going to eat going forward?” wondered a tearful girl outside one of the town’s two schools in a TV interview. “I’ve lived here all my 17 years and I’m not leaving.” Local property owner Paulo Gonçalves, whose land was expropriated during the evictions, blasted the schemes in a phone interview with The New American. “What’s happening here is a great injustice being perpetrated by Dilma’s government,” Gonçalves said. “They are throwing all of those poor families out on the street.... There are now more than 350 families living in just one school, with all of their belongings, they have no place to go, nothing.”

The atrocities against non-Indians were being perpetrated under the fraudulent guise of returning land to a small band of Indians. Many members of that tribe, though, openly admitted, as the Brazilian government did on multiple occasions, that the territory had never been theirs to begin with. Still, the scheme is all taking place as the Brazilian executive-branch regime unilaterally implements the UN agreement without so much as ratification by the Congress. Similar trends are unfolding in free nations worldwide.

The UN Agenda 21 “sustainable development” scheme, which has been covered extensively in these pages, also focuses on how native populations will be exploited for the war on property rights, national sovereignty, free markets, and more. Chapter 26 of the massive document is entitled “Recognizing and Strengthening the Role of Indigenous People and Their Communities.” In the section, the UN states: “In view of the interrelationship between the natural environment and its sustainable development and the cultural, social, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people, national and international efforts to implement environmentally sound and sustainable development should recognize, accommodate, promote and strengthen the role of indigenous people and their communities.”

Like the UN agreement on indigenous peoples, Agenda 21 has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the U.S. Constitution, yet it is still being implemented across the country. Indeed, reading through the relevant section of Agenda 21 and comparing it to U.S. policy development vis-à-vis Indians, it is clear that the UN plot has had a major impact on federal policy. Even Bureau of Land Management “Resource Management Plans” in areas with no Indians at all are now bringing in the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a “partner.” Agenda 21’s Chapter 26 explains in its “objectives” section that, in “full partnership with indigenous people and their communities,” governments and intergovernmental organizations such as the UN should establish “arrangements to strengthen the active participation of indigenous people and their communities in the national formulation of policies, laws and programmes relating to resource management.” It also calls for the involvement of “indigenous people and their communities at the national and local levels in resource management and conservation strategies.” There are countless similar examples.

Outside of America, totalitarian governments are also seizing on the UN “indigenous” schemes to advance what they refer to as a “New World Order.” At a June G-77 plus China summit in Bolivia, more than 130 national governments — including many of the most barbaric communist and Islamist regimes on the planet — signed a declaration entitled “Toward a New World Order to Live Well.” The radical document, in addition to calling for a centrally planned global government and massive wealth redistribution, placed a large emphasis on the role of tribal governments in bringing about their nightmarish vision. “We stress the importance of indigenous peoples in the achievement of sustainable development,” the declaration said, with “sustainable development” being the unifying theme behind their so-called New World Order. The word “indigenous” appears more than 25 times in the document.

At the UN, of course, a wide range of other pretexts is also being used to advance an agenda that is deeply and openly hostile to property rights — with Agenda 21 and “sustainable development” among the key mechanisms. The ultimate goals, however, regardless of what pretext is used, have already been made perfectly clear by the UN itself. In its Habitat I Conference Report, for example, the UN claimed: “[Land] cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”
The Broader War on America, Starring EPA

Beyond Riverton and Wyoming (see our related article "Exploiting Indians"), the EPA scheme is just a small part of the growing UN-linked assaults being witnessed across the United States and the world. However, it illustrates some key principles. “It’s interesting that it was the EPA which imposed this taking,” explained Tom DeWeese, chief of the pro-property rights and pro-national sovereignty American Policy Center (APC). “Throughout U.S. history dealings with the Indian tribes has been mostly through the Department of Interior. With the EPA’s involvement, Americans need to understand the true revolution that is changing our country under the excuse of environmental protection and in the name of globalism.”

The EPA, continued DeWeese in comments to The New American, “has become Obama’s sledgehammer to enforce most of his changes in America.” Among other targets, he said, the environmental agency “is being used to destroy industry, enforce controls over energy and water, stop development, and destroy the existence of private property rights in America.” Now, “it is being used to actually eliminate the very fact of national or state sovereignty.”

Speaking of the UN Indians agreement signed by Obama and other national governments, DeWeese said that it was important to understand the broader context and mindset behind the schemes. To truly grasp what the treaty is designed to do, the APC chief offered a variety of globalist quotes. The UN’s own “Commission on Global Governance” made that clear as well: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations,” it stated. “It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

“The bottom line is this: the drive to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and that of its individual states is one of the most radical concepts in human history,” DeWeese concluded. “Always before, the only way to achieve global governance was through violence and conquest, usually by a power-mad dictator. But today, in order to make it happen, the UN’s plan is for a nation to voluntarily concede. No other president in U.S. history would ever have dared take such radical action. Barack Obama is dedicated to the plan of global governance and is unafraid of making these radical moves. He has no loyalty to the United States. He has no notion of sovereignty or private property. The EPA is his weapon of choice, because it’s ‘globally’ and ‘environmentally’ correct.”
A Pattern of Environmental “Protection” Abuse Indeed, even a brief review of the EPA’s activities — especially recently — would make that conclusion hard to escape. For example, around the same time the Wyoming reservation decision was announced by the EPA, itself created by an executive order, the agency also announced drastic new regulations supposedly aimed at reducing “pollution” from power plants in the state, drawing massive outrage.

This year, the agency continues to spew gargantuan amounts of economy- and liberty-crushing “regulations,” including new schemes that would purport to put virtually every body of water under federal control — even if it has been dry for centuries. That plot has been described by lawmakers and analysts as the largest land grab in history.

Separately, the EPA is also under fire for radical new decrees that will shut down hundreds of power plants across America under the guise of fighting “global warming” and “carbon pollution” — also known as CO2, or human breath, and referred to by scientists as the “gas of life.” When Obama failed to get his cap-and-trade scheme through Congress, he simply had his EPA foist it on America by decree.

In July, the EPA announced a “regulation” that will allow it to plunder Americans’ bank accounts at will, without so much as a court order. If it goes forward, the EPA would even be able to garnish the paychecks of anyone it accuses of violating its mountains of regulations without any semblance of due process of law.

Nationwide, meanwhile, the out-of-control agency is facing increasing scrutiny after its most highly paid bureaucrat and chief “global warming” propagandist was sentenced to prison for fraud. Its top bosses were also facing multiple accusations of criminal activity. More recently, a self-styled “Homeland Security” unit at the EPA, run from the White House, was exposed by the agency’s Office of the Inspector General trying to cover up scandals and prevent investigations. The scandals seem to never end, all while a complicit Congress continues showering taxpayer funds on the rogue agency.

Other tentacles of the Obama administration are engaged in shenanigans that fit nicely with the broader agenda, too. In November 2013, for example, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell brazenly threatened that Obama would bypass Congress and start seizing even more land under the guise of creating “national monuments.” “The president will not hesitate,” she told the Los Angeles Times last November. “I can tell you that there are places that are ripe for setting aside, with a tremendous groundswell of public support.” Of course, the U.S. government already claims ownership over some 650 million acres of land — about a third of America’s total landmass. What remains in private hands may not be far behind at this rate.

At the same time, the Obama administration has been attacking national sovereignty and promoting globalism more than any other administration in history. On everything from going to war based on UN resolutions and boosting the self-styled “International Criminal Court” to imposing dangerous UN agreements without ratification and seeking massive budget increases for the UN’s “peacekeeping” military forces, Obama has gone all out in supporting the global outfit.
Fixing the problems Author and federal Indian policy expert Elaine Willman, calling the joint tribal-federal government problems facing America “very serious,” has some suggestions for reining in the disaster. “The expansion of federal agency ‘footprints’ escalating federal jurisdictional, administrative and regulatory authority over state lands urgently needs to awaken the state governors and state legislatures, who seem to be the ‘sleeping giants’ these days,” she told The New American. However, “none of this horrible federal hoax can stand the stark sunshine of the U.S. Constitution.”
Unfortunately, she says, human nature is such that until Americans are personally impacted by these issues, they will likely remain uninformed and uninterested. To stop the assault will require major educational efforts.

When it comes to tribal governments and reservations, she suggests finding a process that would transition the tribes into a sort of non-profit organization that could govern itself, with title for trust lands going to the corporation having tribe members as shareholders. The Amish communities across America, she says, offer an excellent example of how social and cultural groups can keep their traditions and lifestyles alive — without federal subsidies or special race-based treatment, and without infringing on the rights of other Americans.

Of course, the scope of the broader problems is enormous — almost too vast to comprehend. However, Congress could shut it all down easily by simply disbanding the EPA, defunding Obama’s power grabs, withdrawing from the UN, and undoing the disaster that federal Indian policy has become. Without serious action to rein in the feds, all Americans, including Natives, will end up suffering — along with the rest of humanity