Thursday, April 23, 2015

            I was told by Merritt Newby of American Challenge (a newsletter) that "the Bill of Rights is not subject to repeal, revoke, or rescind"!!  He worked with the most knowledgeable Constitutional attorneys in the Southern States, all of whom were extremely well versed in Constitutional law.  These inherent and natural rights in the Bill of Rights were given to man as an endowment from the Creator, which no one (NO ONE!!!) can eliminate!  These rights are beyond the reach of public officials.  These rights are not subject to the whims of those whom we elect to public office.  This information is verifiable if you check the statements and expressed viewpoints of the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution.  Read the many statements made by Patrick Henry.  Some of his quotes are on my website: Second Amendment Committee.  Most likely, these present day anti-gun (so-called law makers), living in our time, already know all about those discussions that were made when the Constitution was first presented.  It first came without a Bill of Rights. The Constitution at first was rejected until it had a Bill of Rights added to it.  The purpose was to protect our authority, via our right to arms, both individually and collectively!   Patrick Henry of the State of Virginia led in that fight which stopped the whole Constitution from being accepted until a Bill of Rights to protect our right to arms was added. Today's lawmakers, passing these bad "total and complete disarmament laws" and anti-gun laws realize that they are going against our laws!  However, the sad thing in this situation is the number of people of today who believe that today's corrupt and conniving public officials have the power to disarm them! They do not have that power!  It does not exist!  This right is not supposed to even be 'infringed'!!! 
            Total disarmament laws have been written, such as Public Law 87-297, and are totally unconstitutional! The Small Arms Treaty is also totally unconstitutional!  These laws are forbidden by the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and by our whole system of government, which is a "republic", wherein "the people are in charge", and they have the "final authority".   Who is going to enforce these unconstitutional edicts upon us? Were we not armed so that we would be the final authority?!   When authority is taken away from the people, they no longer have a republic!  The condition under which the people were required to be an armed populace was created to preserve and to enforce their authority.  Having "no arms" means having "no authority"!  Being armed insures the continuance of the people's authority, freedom, liberty and a "republic", but IF the people are ever forced to be disarmed, they will no longer have any "authority" nor a "republic".  When their authority goes, the republic will no longer exist!
            We have been led too long on the idea of calling our republic a "democracy".  Do you ever wonder why?  One-worlder Charles E. Merriam taught how to convert our nation into communism, simply by calling it a "democracy", and following the practices of a "democracy."  Merriam wrote the book called "On the Agenda of Democracy" and it explains that democracy IS communism, plus how communism can take over a country more easily when people are totally disarmed. They then will have NO AUTHORITY!  Do you think it won't happen here? 
            The people are gradually accepting communism being laid over them, and are grateful as long as they are told that they are getting "democracy"!  Think twice when someone asks you to support "our democracy”! 
by B. S.
“Before entering on so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its memories, its benefits, its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain WHY we do it?  Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly TO are greater than the ills you fly FROM?  Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?” ….Abraham Lincoln
We, the people, are once again engaged in a great struggle trying to restrain the efforts of unjust, unauthorized, and unconstitutional leadership, which is attempting to force us to abandon our liberty and our 1789 Constitution and then be operated under a world government system.  We are obligated to defend our liberty ourselves, and to reverse the ill gains of those who have sought to destroy our nation’s Constitutional fabric, with all its benefits, limitations, and its rightful protections.  Former and present, once-trusted officials have dared to negate our natural unalienable rights which were endowed upon us by our righteous and divine Creator.   They have been gradually transferring us under a different form of government, which is not with our consent, nor to our liking.  Two completely different governmental systems, total opposites, now occupy the United States. One is our true and rightful system, and the other is a parallel government which was designed to eliminate the great charters instituted by our nation’s founders.  The goal behind this subversion is to deny us the use of liberties, principles and safeguards that were won on our behalf in the Revolutionary War.    
Therefore, the responsibility has fallen upon us, the citizenry, to peacefully resolve and rectify the problems that have been created by this unwanted drive caused by certain individuals and groups engaged in our society, and serving in our government service, who thirst for unlimited socialistic control over their fellow man, using undue and unjust authority to regiment us, the people, and to substitute our birthright of liberty, freedom, independence, and sovereignty with an unwanted militarized command-and-control system: a domineering, world-wide, communized government. Despite the fact it has already been proven that our government operated more efficiently and properly the closer it was held to the people, we are witnessing the effort of these interlopers, who are gradually instituting Hitler-like management techniques over us: a dictatorship.
Officials in the public service of this nation were sworn “to guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government and to protect each of them from invasion.”  This guarantee of a republic was entered as Article IV Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution by our nation’s founders. They decreed and ordained in the Constitution that all able-bodied persons be trained to arms, whereupon the guardianship of our republic and other principles, rights and liberties, would be secure, having been vested in and protected by the people themselves.  Our forefathers did not grant us rights.  Conversely, they confirmed that our most essential rights had always existed as unalienable rights, and were an endowment from the Creator, meant to be applied by the people as principles, and laws whenever needed.
All representatives of the people are required to abide by the U. S. Constitution by swearing under oath to give their devoted loyalty to its principles, and promising not to exceed their Constitutional limitations.  They are required to protect our states and our citizens by maintaining an army and a navy to provide for our common defense, which is to be kept under the people’s exclusive national control and command.  They are also required to protect our right to own land and to guard our borders against undue immigration.  They are required to protect our right to life including the ability to be able to be born once conceived.  They are required to protect our right to freedom of speech and of the press, and our right to vote for issues and representatives or to recall them when necessary, and to have the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.  They are required to maintain a well-regulated militia, composed of the whole body of the people, which is necessary to the security of a free state.  Having the right to vote proves that  the people were meant to be the ultimate authority. The founders themselves drafted the president’s oath of office, and included it in the Constitution as Article II Section 1 to insure that all the power being given to the president would be placed in the hands of a Constitutionally loyal person.  Also included under this oath requirement are members of the federal and state legislatures and their judicial branches, including the states’ executive branch.  All were sworn to obey all the principles within the Constitution and its amendments as the “supreme law of the land” which they have not done!  According to the Constitution, to do otherwise constitutes rebellion against the laws of the United States. 
Therefore, in a peaceful manner, we are obliged to list herein 12 grievances that they have caused by the rebellion they have conducted and the gradual disregard of our rightful Constitutional principles and laws.
Grievance #1.       The National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA) :  Recently, legislation has been passed by both houses of Congress, and has been signed by President Barack Obama, which can cause people to be rounded up by government hirelings and quietly made to disappear from the face of the earth, without a hearing, a trial or an investigation. (Refer to the potential in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Sections 1031 and 1032)  Although at present the Act supposedly exempts citizens of the United States, a minor change, deleting that one-line sentence in this law could cause American citizens who have criticized the government in Washington, D.C., or protested against the damage being done to our rightful system, to be included in such a round up. Criticism of the government will be considered as grounds that these criticizing people are “terrorists”.   The charge will be handled in such a manner that will discountenance any objection by the general population.  If this happens, the opposition to the enforcement of global world communism will no longer exist!  There will be no one left with the knowledge and proofs to expose what is to happen to all those who are eventually destined to live under the new militarized global  world order.
Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA introduces the federal government’s ability to arrest and incarcerate without trial or public notice any person who objects to the federal government’s management policies.  Restricted now (only by a single typed line) is a caveat, exempting American citizens, which can be removed at any future time and leave the wording in three separate places of this legislation.  The potential is present to easily dismiss the single line caveat and convert the authority to arrest and do away with any person – even an American citizen -- if the person objects to the federal government’s global management policies and conversion to world government.  The NDAA could be easily changed to grant this power to the world government “planners” – to seize any person – as these two words (any person) are written  a number of times.  Some proponents of the measure in Congress did not want to include the caveat exempting American citizens, but they had to allow it, in order to get the legislation passed out of both houses.  The reported plan (that the federal government “planners” intend to kill off many Americans, possibly even 25 million Americans) is still bandied about.  The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) endangers all gun owning citizens.
Grievance #2.             The General and Complete Disarmament Law - Appalling legislation, written to totally disarm the people of the United States was passed years ago. It is chaptered as a federal law, unbeknown to the people.  It is kept active by funding and is titled as Public Law 87-297.  It can be fully seen by locating it on the Internet.  Every citizen will be disarmed, except for the world government troops who are assigned the duty “to keep order”.   P. L. 87-297 was signed into law by John Kennedy after the Congress passed it in September of 1961.  Its various amendments, including Public Law 101-216, are continually funded by Congress.  It has caused our military bases to be closed or realigned, beneficial to world troop use.  P. L. 87-297 also transfers the entire national armed forces of the United States on a permanent basis under the United Nations organization, and our nation will have no common defense.  All privately held firearms will be confiscated, and ordered to be handed over to the Surrender Agency.  This law will not allow any American citizen the right to own a gun.  There will be no right to recall these public officials, as all representatives will be appointed, chosen by the communist-thinking leaders of the world government system.  An approval from the people of their permission for the government to completely disarm them of all handguns is falsely being claimed by the federal government.  The fact is that it is a counterfeited document which the anti-gunners wrote and inserted in a book that the people had once approved.   (Refer to Page 340 Report)
Grievance #3.             Installation of the Homeland Security Department (originally called an Agency):  It breaks the guarantee in the Constitution of a republican form of government, and it has changed the U.S.A. from being a republic into a dictatorship, because the military and the civilian law enforcement systems have now been merged together under one agency head, something that cannot be done in a country that intends to remain a republic.  This merger constitutes the deliberate casting of the U.S.A. from a republic into a dictatorship.  The people do not realize the effect of this “department”.  
Grievance #4.        Dictatorship in Action  We have a president who has refused to prove that he is qualified to hold office by being natural born. His grandmother has announced that he was born in Kenya, Africa, and she was there in the delivery room when he was born.  After it was evident that he was elected, Barack Obama informed the nation that “ five days we will fundamentally change America.”  This warning meant that he intended from the onset to alter essentials of the system, which he did by advancing the Homeland Security Agency, appointing Czars, wanting a private army to surround him and forcing a socialistic National Health Medical System upon the people which controls the lives of the people from cradle-to-grave.  The medical system in the future will decide whether an individual has a right to continue living after a certain age or existing medical condition.  Changes he has made under the Homeland Security Department are such that Washington, D.C. now controls almost all law enforcement officials in the United States, all the way down to the beat officer in local communities, something the states should have objected to, but did not!  Under the full blown world government system all the police will be fully militarized.  Appointed officials, that are non-elected, will rule in the dictatorship, and will have more authority over the lives of the people than our elected officials ever had. Also, under regionalism, we may expect all state boundary lines to disappear. State governments will eventually lose their significance as world management develops.  Note: We are grateful that there is a growing number of County Sheriffs who understand State Sovereignty (Tenth Amendment) and do remember their oath of office.
Grievance #5.             Federal seizure of the Department of Education:  Christianity is gradually being outlawed in the public schools, and the right to raise our children in a free educational  atmosphere is being denied. Atheism will rule and deny our children the teachings of our nation’s founders and our Christian beliefs, which recognize that the world belongs to God.  There will eventually be a denial that our rights come from the divine Creator.  All children will be taught the message of globalism.   Our public libraries are being subjected to the replacement of books that once memorialized our sacred religious practices and values, and are substituted with those containing altered and debased views which favor global attitudes.
Grievance #6.             The complexity of Agenda 21:  The intent of this Agenda is to gradually eliminate our 50 state governments, and in their place, have ten international regions delivering world communist policies and leadership over the former U.S.A.  Individual freedom will be stripped away.  “Sustainable Development” integrates the United Nations economic, social, and environmental policies for “social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity”.  This includes universal health care, global education, and global population control, global land use with its restrictions against individuals owning land, all under one international authority.  It harmonizes U. S. Environment policy with United Nations’ socialistic directives while it “reinvents” our U.S. government!   The disarmed citizens of the United States will be monitored by a world army under the World-wide Military Command and Control Systems.   Note: This is what has happened to our tax money.
Grievance #7.             Open borders: There is a law suit brought on by the federal government against the State of Arizona as that state tried to make up for the lack of federal responsibility toward border security. Their governor opposes the flood of immigrants there. The increase of illegal immigrants, and the cost of adding 40 million more people for our taxes to provide the expenses and the costs they incur, has added to the near bankruptcy condition of our states and federal systems.  Leaving our national borders open also assists in the planning for the “North American Union” which did not succeed as yet.  It merges Canada, Mexico and the U.S.A. together in one “union” operated by appointed officials that cannot be recalled or voted out. One can envision the damage this will do to the Constitutions of these three nations.  Our borders were left open to illegal immigrants in order to make increases in the population of people who have not been trained in Constitutional principles.  They will eventually end up voting for socialists at the polls.  Many illegal immigrants continue to come here to sell drugs.  Open borders allow crime to increase so that more American citizens will be less concerned as to what is happening to our country but more concerned to that which is happening to their own property. 
Grievance #8.             Implementation of Adolph Hitler’s methods of operation: The following excerpt will give the people a more clear picture of how the U.S.A. reached this low ebb that is now causing them great shock and suffering.  A system analyst has reported: “After the collapse of the German Third Reich, not only did the United States pick up Adolph Hitler’s scientists, but the U. S. “planners” received a tremendous augmentation when in 1945 they rummaged over what was left of Hitler’s Third Reich.  The U.S. retrieved the inductive type of reasoning and logic that was used to operate that totalitarian government, and the “planners” seized upon the thoroughness of Hitler’s dictatorial management systems.  A lot of these elementary concepts were taken up by the U.S. Air Force and were amalgamated within the prerogative of their responsibilities which at that time resulted in the setting up of what we now call the Military Standards 499 Systems, defined as a systematic process (a methodology) of solving sequential problems.    The result is that 99% of the lower practitioners of these final systems, engineering techniques and methodologies – with their short and long range plannings, are completely unaware – are completely oblivious to the fact of where or why these concepts were developed.  Many of our government employee “planners” are deploying techniques about which they realize little or nothing of its source or intention.  They get the parameters and details of the tasks they have to perform only, but they are not given, nor do they understand, the total integrated picture. Whenever the whole thing is in place, the United States Constitutional government system will be overthrown and replaced by a total military government.  The people who worked in the systems will little understand how their part fit into the complete system; nor how they assisted in overthrowing their own government.” 
Grievance #9.   Abortion:  Killing of millions of unborn babies each year. It is noteworthy to state that at least 50 million unborn babies have been killed in the womb wiping out an entire generation of people, the effect of which will be a damaging factor to the stability of the social security system. 
Grievance #10.   Foreign aid:  Our tax money has been used to help destabilize the governments of foreign countries, which is a part of world government planning, as it makes the recipient country ripe for communism.  At the same time such monetary grants in the federal budget are partly responsible for bankrupting our own country and adding to a plan for its collapse.    Refer to a government issued document called “The Politics of Change in Local Government Reform”.
Grievance #11     General Plans for our Cities, Counties:  The fragile flower of incentive does not thrive in totally planned economies with federally mandated elements, such as those which have been occurring.  Known as the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (P.P.B.S.) and Management by Objectives (M.B.O.) the federal government has concentrated all power in Washington, D.C.  It has been revamping the policies and direction of our nation for world government management by requiring adherence to federally mandated elements as a part of the “General Plan” of our cities, counties, and states for many long years.   Agenda 21 links in with it.  These elements were forced to be adopted or the city or county would have lost its federal funding, which is unfair to them and the states.  At the same time, only a few states have put forth resistance, while our children have been subjected to global indoctrination in all levels of education for future participation in this new world order.  
Grievance #12.           Presidents in tandem for Globalism:  Massive blame for the weakening of our sovereignty can be laid at the doorstep of the Oval Office.  Each and every president since F.D.R. has participated in the betrayal and each administration has provided a major segment in the restructuring for world government leadership.   The title of “Presidents In Tandem for Globalism” fits each president since 1932.  F.D.R. moved from theory to implementation of the plan for the overthrowing of the 1789 Constitution.  Each president since has been given an assignment of “changes” to be made during his administration.  For example: President John Kennedy’s assignment was to abolish our right to keep and bear arms and to transfer our national armed forces on a permanent basis under the command and control of the United Nations.  This he did with Public Law 87-297. The American people stand to lose their right to have a military for common national defense.  President Richard M. Nixon’s assignment was to officially cut the United States into Ten “Standard Federal Regions.” Regional alignments were also laid over other countries all over the world, allowing planning and future management to be made on a world-wide basis. This Nixon did by enacting presidential Executive Order No. 11647, and because of it, the United States is being managed by resolutions and dictates coming from the United Nations General Assembly.  President James Carter’s assignment was to lead the U. S. into giving up control of the Panama Canal and now the communist Chinese have taken control of it.  President Ronald Reagan’s assignments were the installation of the P.P.B.S., the Courts-Martial (Instruction) Manual, the World-wide Military Command and Control System, and signing of the UNIDO Treaty giving consent for the United States to have a new social and economic order.  (Refer to Treaty 97-19) President George W. Bush’s assignment was to issue several Executive Orders to cause the republic to be converted for operation as a dictatorship which was first named the “Homeland Security Agency” (See E. O. 13286 dated February 2003 – signed by George W. Bush, which merged the military and the civilian law enforcement systems together under one head. ) 
President Barack Obama’s assignments were to enhance the executive orders of George W. Bush and develop the military dictatorship which then became known as the Homeland Security “Department”.  The military and the civilian law enforcement systems (the police, all over the whole United States, which rightfully belong under the control of their own respective state) are now merged together under one federal agency for federal militarized management.  This is never done in a republic IF it is to remain a republic! The federal government long ago had consolidated all power in Washington, D.C., which quite easily made the U.S. president a very powerful world dictator.  Presently, Obama has a series of “czars” running the federal government, subject only to the dictatorship of Barack Obama.  Other presidents were assigned the acceptance of the communist “Human Rights Treaties” which are replacements for our own Bill of Rights.  Our federal officials regard the world court’s decisions as final, even above the Constitution, which is supposed to be known as the “Supreme Law of Our Land.”  The way the country is operating, this apparently is no longer the case.     
We have had pretenders as presidents and a compromised Congress for too long.  The few congressmen who did try to alert the people of the existence of this parallel world government system were never given proper consideration and their pleadings ended.  Only a few officials today will assist in correcting these failings, unless We, the people, make known the sort and extent of the damages and wrong doings that hold us in its grip. The end to meaningful elections is near, as the world regions and the United States will soon be manned by “appointees” who are not elected, but appointed.
A deliberately planned total collapse of government and irreversible bankruptcy will soon overtake us if the above grievances are not met with corrective solutions. All the grievances have the same underlying basis: too much power being taken by the federal government and used for unauthorized unconstitutional purposes.   Too much money also has been sent to Washington, D.C. which has given the federal government the ability to force the states to fall in line with the undesired world system of government,  lest they be denied federal “revenue sharing” money to finance federally mandated (required) programs for “change”.
We, the people, own the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because We, the people, ratified both charters.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights belong to us, the people.  No authorization has ever been issued or okayed by the “owners of the Constitution” (We, the people,) to allow for abandoning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence; nor changing the United States into a dictatorship under a world government.  These precious documents are really still the “supreme law of the land”.  They prove that the ultimate authority still lies with the people of the United States of America.
Without the resistance the Congress should have delivered, but failed to do, and by having compromised state governors elected over the states, with few exceptions, we now suffer from a lack of foresight and fortitude in preventing conditions that never should have occurred.  
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”     
                                                                                                                 …..John Philpott Curran
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force and whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”                                                                                                   ..…Patrick Henry
Respectfully submitted by:                                                                 
We, the people, in the State of                                                             

Nine Groups Instead of the 48 States

 A Proposal for Rebuilding the Structure  of Government In Order to Deal  With Issues on a National Scale 

By Delbert Clark: Washington The New York Times Magazine  April 21, 1935  

There is a growing sentiment - it is still too inchoate to be termed a movement - among certain members of Congress with advanced social views and a willingness to break with tradition, in favor of drastic change in our form of government to facilitate nation-wide reforms frequently blocked by the very nature of our confederation. Since, obviously, there is political dynamite in any proposal to abolish States in so far as they provide a check upon the Federal Government, no one has yet dared to broach publicly the thesis that the abolition would be in the public interest and is, in fact, a distinct possibility in the some-what distant future.  

Yet there are those who feel that the change should be made. The reasons advanced for such a revolutionary step are on their face sound enough. A study of our recent legislative history, beginning with the imposition of a Federal income tax in the Wilson administration, reveals clearly that virtually every great national reform movement, economic or social, has brought up short against constitutional inhibitions against Federal regulation of intrastate matters.  

A Federal income tax could not be imposed until the long, tedious process of amending the Constitution had been carried through. A National prohibition law could not be obtained without amendment of the Constitution. Equal suffrage for women had to go the same route; there is pending a constitutional amendment to permit the abolition, on a national scale, of child labor. None of these measures, good or bad, could be adopted without altering our basic law, and, what is of almost equal importance, none of them could be nullified without going through the same process in reverse.  

But even these are relatively minor difficulties. It may well be a good thing that important changes are confronted with so formidable a hurdle as two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and a three-fourths vote of the States. The really alarming feature, these men assert, is the fact that in times of genuine emergency, when traditional State sovereignty must be forgotten for the common welfare, emergency acts of the Federal Government can be effectively nullified by the fact that there exist State lines which cannot be crossed by that great national policeman. [Constitution] 

The time has come, they say, when we should realize that the functions of the Federal Government have become much more than those of a peace officer, when the progressive welding of forty-eight States into one nation calls for recognition, through revision of what has become a cumbersome instrument of government. This talk has arisen largely under the New Deal, which has brought to the fore urgent national problems that can be met only on a national scale; proposed remedies are often virtually checkmated by the fact of State sovereignty. 

The industrial control features of the National Industrial Recovery Act have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional in the inferior Federal courts; the controverted Section 7a, governing labor relations, has only recently been held unconstitutional except in interstate commerce, and the term "interstate" so construed as virtually to nullify the operations of the section under any circumstances. ATTACKS on the constitutionality of the power development program of the Federal Government, on its regulation of national resources such as lumber and oil, on its efforts at slum clearance, have multiplied to such an extent that New Deal administrators go about these days with their fingers habitually crossed. 

And it is not always the Federal foot that the shoe pinches. Only a few weeks ago a sovereign State - New York - was told by the Supreme Court of the United States that it must not regulate the price of milk within its borders if that milk was produced in another State, since that would constitute an interference with interstate commerce. While many of the more advanced school do not necessarily quarrel with these decisions on legal grounds, they are tremendously irked by the system which makes them possible. It takes a very great judge indeed, they admit, to fly in the face of tradition and establish an important precedent. Even those who would shy away from any suggestion of fundamental change in our instrument of government believe some action is necessary, or if not action then change of method, if all reform legislation of a national character is not to be hampered by literal-minded court opinions. 

Among those who believe the courts should accept social and economic change as a controlling factor in approving or nullifying legislation, and who are profoundly dissatisfied with the (to them) artificial barriers provided by State lines, is Senator Wagner of New York. Senator Wagner, himself a lawyer and former justice of a high State tribunal, and sponsor in his Senatorial career of much social reform legislation, believes that adherence to the letter of a document adopted nearly 150 years ago by thirteen seaboard States, with few of our present problems, tends to make of that document a dead thing, rather than the living organism it was intended to be. Such interpretation, he believes, is contrary to the best legal thought of our whole history, and he foresees what might amount to a blockade of "public welfare" legislation unless State frontiers cease to be barriers in the path of social advancement.  

Note:  The Constitution is not a living document, nor was it intended to be.  The intent was to protect the inherited - of our Creator - rights of the individual.  The law is static.  

There are, he pointed out recently, two major considerations before the Supreme Court when it is called upon to determine the constitutionality of a given law.  

The first is: "Does the legislation violate due process of law or infringe liberty of contract?" This, he added, "involves determination of whether the force of government has overstepped the boundary that separates it from freedom of the Individual under our constitutional system."  

The second consideration is: "Has the Federal Government acted within the limits of its delegated authority under the commerce clause, or has it overstepped the boundary that separates national action from State action? "Neither of these boundaries, said Senator Wagner, should be fixed or inflexible, because "changing social and economic conditions transmute personal questions into social questions and State issues into national issues."  

As an example of what once was considered unconstitutional in that it infringed the rights of the individual, the Senator recalled a decision in1904, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a NewYork law prohibiting employment for more than ten hours a day in bakeries. The ground for the court's opinion was that the law constituted a "meddlesome interference" with individual liberty! Yet in 1917 Congress could decree an eight-hour day for all railway employees, and it occurred to no one that this in fringed upon the liberties of the individual.  

Senator Wagner's feeling is perhaps intensified by the fact that he is titular author of the National Industrial Recovery Act, an act which, whatever its purpose later became, was originally intended primarily as a measure of social and business reform. And it is this act which is subject to a more concerted attack than perhaps any other New Deal law.  

The Senator's own Labor Disputes Bill, now pending, may well face similar attack if it becomes law. "The question of whether something affects interstate commerce and is therefore subject to national regulation," said the Senator, summing up his arguement, "depends upon shifting and complex economic and social facts quite as much as the question of whether a matter is affected with a public interest to the extent necessary to justify State interference with "freedom of contract."  

However, Senator Wagner is not yet ready to join the ranks of those who would change our governmental system to facilitate national reform. Going back over the history and development of the Supreme Court, he sees with rising hope a slow but steady progression toward a broader social attitude on the part of that final tribunal. It is his hope and belief that the court itself will solve the problem which he recognizes as so urgent. Others are not so optimistic. Courts are notoriously slow at best, they point out, and much harmful delay can result through legal procedures before a case ever reaches the Supreme bench.  

Any one of the inferior Federal judges could, it is asserted, easily tie up matters for a long time through mistaken judgement or too literal interpretation of the Constitution. The Revisionists, as they are being called for a lack of a better term, believe the only genuine remedy is whatever constitutional change may be necessary to get rid of the troublesome commerce clause. This clause, they contend, is nothing less than a minor survival of the idea that States might levy tariffs. The levying of tariffs between States was specifically forbidden in the Constitution to which they consented, but the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce was allowed to remain.  

This distinction now is little more than a quibble, the Revisionists contend, and should be obliterated. But how bring about this greater cohesion, this enhancement of the Federal Government's powers to cross States lines for the general good? The most common - albeit the most startling proposal - is to abolish so-called States' rights entirely, preserving State lines only for sentimental reasons, and reapportion the United States into eight or ten great departments, to be locally self-governed but without the power to hamstring the national government in its legislative acts.  

Such a plan would envisage a national House of Representatives of the same membership and on the same basis as at present. Each member would be chosen from a Congressional district as now. The Senate, on the other hand, would be made up of an equal number of members from each department, to be elected at large. On this basis the membership of the Senate might be the same as now, or it might be slightly larger or smaller. For example, if there were eight departments there could be twelve Senators at Large from each department. Or if there were ten departments there could be 100 Senators, with ten from each department. Or with nine departments there could be ninety Senators.  

The Governor of each department would be chosen at large by popular vote. The matter of local autonomy, the proponents of this scheme say, could be worked out as a detail in the larger plan. It could, perhaps, apply to police and fire protection within the department, and to public schools, sanitation and the like. But taxation, general social and economic regulation, in fact anything for which there would be no valid reason for local differentiation, would be in the province of the Federal Government.  

There would be a uniform system of marriage and divorce, a uniform system of social insurance and labor regulation, uniform national banking and uniform traffic regulations. And since the departmental governors, while elective, would be responsible to the President just as county Sheriffs are now responsible to the Governor of a State, sufficient uniformity could be had in primary education and other matters intimately affecting the national weal.  

To provide for strictly local expenses, a pro rata share of the national revenue would be turned over to the departments. Elimination of party duplicating systems, it is held would make possible vast economies. To those who suggest that such a centralization of functions would make for a tremendous bureaucracy and unutterable confusion, its proponents blandly reply that things could not be much worse confounded than at present, and add that obviously such a system would have to be worked out in minute detail long in advanced of execution.  

As for bureaucracy, they point to the already lengthening arm of the Federal Government, and hint that it might be less wasteful if it were extended a bit further. To the argument that elimination of this particular set of checks and balances, making it possible to enact all sorts of vital legislation by a simple act of Congress, would invite the danger or large numbers of ill-considered laws being foisted on the citizenry, reply is made that, on the other hand, bad laws would be equally easy to get rid of.  

There is no purpose to abolish the Constitution or deprive the Supreme Court of its self-assumed power to pass on legislation. There would still be that system of checks - the whole Federal process remaining the same, except that State governments as such would cease to exist.  

Strange as it may seem, a mutuality of interest among the States follows roughly sectional lines. There are problem children, whose cases the revisionists would weigh before tossing a State into the appropriate basket.  

One proposed division would be approximately as follows:  

(1) Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut - all New England. 
(2) New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia. 

(3) Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. 

(4) Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas.  

(5) Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Missouri. 

(6) Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana.  

(7) Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. 

(8) Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,Nevada, Utah and Colorado. 

(9) Washington, Oregon and California.  

Obviously many quarrels would arise before this grouping could be carried to a successful conclusion. 

For example, there is West Virginia, orphan child of the war between the States. Virginia might want to reclaim this lost province, but, on the other hand, its dominant industry would appear to place it with Pennsylvania. 

Tennessee and Kentucky also present problems, particularly Kentucky. Are they North, East or South? Both would vehemently deny any affiliation, spiritual or otherwise, with the North, yet Northern Kentucky might well be affiliated with Ohio. And there is strong reason to suspect that neither would choose to amalgamate with the States along the lower Mississippi.

The proponent of this particular line-up contends that their principal interest lies with the States to the east. The problem of designations for the proposed departments would be considerable. Certainly, to avoid strife, any thought of designations suggesting present State names would have to be discarded. 

The first group is simple enough - the Department of New England. 

But thereafter the difficulty starts. How devise a name to describe that great commercial group bounded by New York on the north and West Virginia on the south? "Department of Commerce" obviously would never do. Urbana has been suggested, or simply the Department of the Middle Atlantic.

Sloping southwest to the region of chronic Statehood, the third department could be called the Department of the Irreconcilables, or merely the Department of the South Atlantic. 

Group 4 might well be named the Department of the Gulf, the Department of the Mississippi, or, to please Louisiana, the Coted' Azur. 

Group 5 suggests the Department of the Southwest, or, more poetically, of the Frontier. 

Group 6 would undoubtedly like to get away from "Middle West,"and might be known as the Department of the Inland Seas, or, simply, of the Great Lakes.

Group 7 suggests the Department of the Prairies, or perhaps the Department of Experimentation. [End of Article] 

N O T E : The original of this article is contained in the Regionalism Document Packet detailed in the Doc Packet list. Documents make the difference in proving to state and local elected officials that regionalism will eliminate local and state governments. Elected officials are literally voting their jobs, their Constitutional protections and their freedom away. . . and of course, their loved ones, we, and all Americans will go down the tubes together. We would rather not, thank you. Global Governance CANNOT be implemented until the plan to eliminate local and state governments is complete. Don't let maps showing township, county, state lines bluff you. Regionalism is an overlay. If one were to look at a map today showing the regions... one would gasp in shock. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge has admitted that our local government borders are "artificial". We can stop and reverse the process if we get busy N O W !!!
The always excellent Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch reports today on the decision of U.S. Muslim Brotherhood (MB) umbrella group the US Council of Muslim Organizations to issue a press release coming to the aid of Turkey, which is battling growing pressure in the United States and around the world to recognize the Armenian genocide, whose 100th anniversary will be marked this Friday April 24th. While the press release claims the MB groups “share the pain” of the community, it goes on to take a decidedly Pro-Turkish stance:
While Muslim Americans sympathize deeply with the loss of Armenian lives in 1915, we also believe that reconciliation must take into honest account the broader human tragedy of World War I. Muslim Americans expect our leaders to act accordingly to ensure that American-Turkish strategic relations are not damaged by a one-sided interpretation of the 1915 events.”
MB’s support for the Islamist government of Turkey, and especially its leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been well documented previously, support which Turkey has repaid both with support to for the Brotherhood’s armed wing in Palestine, Hamas, but also in supporting the MB leaders against the current Egyptian government of Al-Sissi, assisting the MB with ratcheting up violent tensions within Egypt through Turkish hosted media.



5 Corporations Sucking California Dry During the Drought

Jake Anderson | ANTIMEDIA
As most people in the country know by now, California is currently suffering from a severe, record-breaking drought. In fact, it’s the worst drought in 1,200 years. While Governor Jerry Brown recently issued a mandate for people to start conserving water, large corporations use up and waste vastly more water than individuals and small businesses, often in ways that are detrimental to the environment.
Let’s take a look at five of the most massive corporations in California that are the worst culprits when it comes to wasting water:

1. Nestle

Nestle, once mainly known for its chocolate bars, is now becoming increasingly notorious for the way it uses up water in its bottled water products. Nestle, of course, has been criticized for using up water in drought-stricken third world countries. However, it is also doing this right at home in California. For example, one of the places where Nestle gets water is on the Morongo Reservation in the Cabazon region of the state. This is an area where groundwater levels have been steadily declining in recent years.

2. Harris Ranch

Harris Cattle Ranch is the largest producer of beef in California. At last count, it produced more than 150 million pounds of beef per year. While much of the attention on conserving water is focused on individuals, the fact is that more than 90% of the water used in California is consumed by agriculture. Cows require more than twenty times as much water as humans. Crops such as soybeans and corn, which are heavily subsidized by the government, also use up massive amounts of water.

3. Occidental Petroleum

Occidental Petroleum is one of the oil companies in California that use enhanced oil recovery techniques, more commonly known as ‘fracking’. This is a practice that has become increasingly controversial due to potential health risks and suspected fracking-related seismic activity. Fracking also uses up large amounts of water. According to one estimate, a single well may use more than 5 million gallons of water to extract resources. Recent evidence also suggests that fracking companies have dumped waste water into aquifers, which contaminates the water with pollutants such as heavy metals and radiation.

4. California Dairies, Inc.

California Dairies, Inc. is the largest dairy processing cooperative in the state, producing 43% of California’s milk and 9% of the milk of the entire country. Along with beef, dairy production is another practice that uses up incredible amounts of water. It actually takes as much as 30 gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk.

5. Paramount Farming

Paramount Farming is the largest producer in the nation of nuts such as almonds and pistachios. Almond production alone uses up more water than is used by both residents and businesses in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined. Most nuts grown in California are exported to various parts of the world.
California’s drought is a serious and complex issue. Solving it will take an effort on the part of many people, including individuals, politicians and businesses. When studying this issue, however, it’s important not to ignore the considerably more massive part played by large companies. We have seen what happens on a geopolitical level when vital resources begin to dwindle, and I’m not talking about Frank Herbert’s Dune, which features a planet in which the scarcity of water has made it the most precious of substances. People can help to conserve water in many ways. More importantly, in addition to using less water with everyday tasks, people can pay more attention to what type of products they buy and consume. If you are interested in the macro view of water conservation, consider boycotting the companies and industries listed above.
Today we mark 200 years since the Second Serbian Uprising against Ottomans took place.

 The conquered Orthodox Christian populations under Ottoman rule were disarmed and dispossessed of all property, and were soon pressed into a condition of serfdom under Turkish masters. They were called “giours” and in the mass the “rayah,” “the herd.” Whoever renounced his faith and became a Turk – Mohammedan was thereby instantly naturalized into Islam, receiving the status and all the life-chances of a born Osmanili [Turk]. That was the sole means in his power of escaping from the subjected masses or of opening a door of opportunity.
The Serbians in general refused to accept that door of escape from durance vile and remained true to their Orthodox Christian and national faith, even though the long night of practical extinction, hoping for a dawn though long deferred.
Many of the Serbian nobles and numbers of the common people fled to Serb lands under Venice or those under Hungary [i.e. to Krajina].
But certain ones among the nobles and others became Turks – Moslems, thereby preserving their lands and castles, and authority was given to them under the Turks as Pashas, Beys, Agas, and Spahis. They became ranged, in the eyes of the general populations, on the side of the conquerors, and were looked upon by the people as Turks.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the inhabitants had not only been subject to Turkish attack, but had been obliged as well to stand, ever beating back Hungarian invasions, the greater part of the nobles went over in body to Mohammedanism.
Large numbers of Serbs, loyal to their faith and home traditions, escaped to the mountain fastnesses from which they were able to harass the Turks of the plains and so maintain a relative independence.
The Serbians of the Rayah lived under great oppression and humiliation, their only means of protection being through the Serbian Patriarch so long as one existed.
In case of acts of injustice or violence suffered at the hands of individual Turks, there was no possible redress. –
The Orthodox Christian Serbs were forbidden the use of horses or camels, only mules and asses being allowed them.
They were forbidden to ride even a mule or an ass in the presence of a Turk (or in the presence of an converted, former Serbs).
It was not permitted that their houses should have a better appearance than Turkish houses.
For their faith they had much to suffer. The Serbian Orthodox clergy, few in number, were kept in miserable conditions, and churches which had been destroyed were not allowed to be rebuilt, the building of new churches being strictly forbidden.
The sound of church bells was forbidden as was also the reading aloud of the Holy Scriptures or the pronunciation of the name of Jesus Christ.
It was not lawful to make the sign of the cross, to show a cross, or to eat pork in sight of a Turk.
The Rayah were not allowed openly to bury their dead; Christian burials took place at night or in secret; mourning for the dead was strictly prohibited either by costume or by symbol or in any other way.
Church services were often held in some secluded spot in forest or glen, sometimes under a chosen tree marked with a cross; or ordinary houses were built as if for a family, with a central hearth, and sometimes with surrounding st
In Ottoman Empire Christians were but slaves at nonexistent mercy of their Muslim lords. Many, many books worldwide write about different horrors the Christians endured.
One of the most humiliating forms of oppression was that Muslims gave themselves “right of the first night”. In practice it meant that Turkish (or local Muslim Slav) lord would spend the first night with the new Christian bride. The groom had to take shoes off and silently circle the house while the Turk makes love to his wife.
Still, by far the worst horror the Christians had to endure was the TurkishJanissary system. Western scholars frequently downplay the importance of this “Tax in Blood” as Christian subjects nicknamed it.
More on Orthodox Christians Serbs under Ottoman rule:

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

UN Demanding $100 Billion Per Year To Create Huge Climate Change Slush Fund, Obama’s On Board

It’s not enough that the big-eared emperor is parading around without any clothes on, he and his comrades are engaging in an orgy of power lust and greed right in front of us. Look away kids and take the dogs to the back yard. There’s no telling where this could end up.
The extortionist panhandler that goes by the title of UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has been on a fundraising tour on behalf of the emergency that doesn’t exist, holding out his tin cup in the creation of the mother of all slush funds.
Just like a whiny soon-to-be ex-girlfriend, Ban is taking his $100 billion dollar message of “but you promised” to anyone willing to listen and donate other people’s money in exchange for a piece of his action.
On Saturday he appeared at an International Monetary Fund event in Washington. It’s a natural that one who will need a distribution network for large sums of slushy cash would promote his scam at one of their events.
Ban proclaimed that all of us “evil pollution breathers” have some nebulous obligation to enrich his world government organization based upon the improper and unwarranted promises of self-serving politicians such as the infamous climate criminal, Hussein Obama. He said, “We need a credible trajectory for realizing the $100 billion goal per year by 2020, as well as the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund.” The Korean Ban made up a big English word to match the big lies he’s telling.
If the UN produced anything of value Ban could get up off of his knees, take the financial IV he has hooked to our treasury out of the UN’s clenched fist and make their own money. They won’t, there’s just simply too much benefit to being a parasite.
Ban said, “This was a commitment which was made in 2009 during the Copenhagen climate change summit meeting. We have only mobilized $10 billion as an initial capitalization of this Green Climate Fund. I would really hope that there will be a trajectory, a path, which will be shown to the member-states.”
Ban shook his cup at a conveniently scheduled pre-Earth Day concert in DC on Saturday night as well, telling the mindless youth who have no idea of what he’s up to, “I want to hear from you. It’s our last chance to slow global warming.”
Good enough, it’s the last chance, so if we tell him no one more time he’ll shut up about it? No, he didn’t mean the last last chance, just the last chance until he asks the next time. That last chance.
The current last chance has a goal of reaching annual contributions to his UN Climate Slush fund of $100 billion annually by the year 2020, so it’s at least a five year long last chance.
Ban was sniveling that he’s only been able to arm-twist 33 countries into a paltry $10.2 billion, three billion of which was donated by Obama Claus from our treasury last November. What does the planet want that costs $100 billion a year and where do you buy it, Ban? Is it available in green?
The answer is the money isn’t for planet, obviously our Earth doesn’t spend money. It’s for the profiteering politicians and UN officials who are lining their pockets with the stupidity of the people of the world. If they’re dumb enough to allow them to get away with it, then… hey wait a minute, that’s my money too!

It’s all part of the lead up to the big Paris summit in November where they expect us to shamefully cave and become “global citizens,” shedding our Neanderthal nationalism in the interest of assuming our rightful place among the paupers of the world; no better, no worse, but certainly soon to be more remorseful for throwing away a perfectly good nation in exchange for a false promise that funded their criminal operation.

Their comrades at the World Bank highlighted two key components to their scheme, carbon taxes paid to our new masters at the UN and mandated phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies.
Of course they downplay the significance of their actions as the truth would be an impossible sale to make. The IMF and its sister criminal enterprise the World Bank issued a report on Saturday stating, “With a small percentage of the money that [is] saved by ending subsidies or of the revenue raised from a carbon tax or permit sale going to climate finance, governments could help meet the $100 billion climate finance commitment and other mitigation and adaptation needs.”
Who gets that money specifically and for what purposes is of course never mentioned. There is no legitimacy to what they are doing, and criminals know it’s bad practice to brag to their victims.
CNSNews reports that a coalition of eight countries – Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, none of them significant fossil fuel producers, calling itself “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform,” bemoaned on Friday the fact that governments spent more than $548 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2013. They want that money to be redistributed among the beggar nations such as themselves, in a global socialist wealth redistribution through the UN conspiracy. It’s that naked communism that the UN was designed to usher in now starting to take form.
They note that the amount was five times the ridiculous $100 billion that the UN is targeting as their initial baseline in their extortion program a number that will surely grow exponentially, as these things do.
In some kind of odd socialist rationale, the “Friends” said,“The elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would make a significant contribution to the goal of keeping average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”
Actually it wouldn’t, the only relationship between the money and the “problem” is that one is the means through which to extort the other. Beyond that, there is nothing that can be done to stop the natural warming of the planet if it is occurring, whether we assign the responsibility to man or whether we accept it as part of nature.
World Bank Schemes Displace Millions of Victims

World Bank projects dealing with everything from “carbon credits” and “development policies” to crony capitalist “business” deals have forcibly evicted and ruined the livelihoods of millions of people around the world, according to an investigation into the globalist organization’s own documents. A comprehensive review of World Bank records by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and various media outlets revealed that close to 3.5 million of the planet’s poorest people, many of them already struggling just to survive, have been forced off their land and relocated as a direct consequence of policies and projects pursued by the government-backed global lender over the last 10 years. The real figures are probably even higher.

Incredibly, due to poor oversight and record keeping, it is often “impossible” to determine how many people were compensated properly — if at all — after being left homeless and destitute by the World Bank, according to researchers. The data compiled by the ICIJ, though, revealed that Asians and Africans were the most likely to be victimized. In Asia, close to three million people were left homeless or re-settled, with more than one million each in Communist China and Communist Vietnam. In Africa, close to half of a million victims were displaced by World Bank schemes — at least if its own dubious records are to be believed. Tens of thousands of victims were also identified in South America. Others came from Europe, Oceania, and North America.

The 11-month review by ICIJ identified a total of 3,350,449 victims — more than the population of Uruguay, Chicago, or Madrid — who were “physically or economically displaced” by a World Bank scheme. However, even the media partners involved in the investigation acknowledged that the true figures were almost certainly much higher. That is because, according to the Huffington Post and other sources, “the bank often fails to count or undercounts the number of people affected by its projects.” Especially harmed were some of the poorest people on the planet: slum dwellers, impoverished farmers, fishermen, forest dwellers, and indigenous tribal communities with little access to the media or even the outside world.
According to investigators, many of the victims also faced violence and intimidation as governments and World Bank-funded goons terrorized them and destroyed their lives. Some suffered worse than others, of course, with the damage ranging from having a portion of their land seized to losing basically everything. The World Bank’s policy on the issue states that, when “possible,” seizing property and forcibly relocating victims should be avoided. Those suffering forced evictions, meanwhile, “should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them ... to pre-displacement levels,” the policy continues.
However, according to the documents and World Bank officials interviewed for media reports, even those lax “standards” for how to deal with victims of the World Bank and their “partners” were not followed. “There was often no intent on the part of the governments to comply, and there was often no intent on the part of the bank’s management to enforce,” former World Bank official Navin Rai, who oversaw the outfit’s alleged “protection” for indigenous people between 2000 and 2012, was quoted as saying in media reports around the world. “That was how the game was played.”
After being confronted with the research ICIJ was able to compile and analyze, World Bank officials did acknowledge the obvious — that there is a problem. “We took a hard look at ourselves on resettlement and what we found caused me deep concern,” claimed World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in a March statement about the mass displacements caused by the bank’s schemes. “One is that we haven’t done a good enough job in overseeing projects involving resettlement.” In response, the World Bank put together an “action plan” that it claimed would help in ensuring that victims of future projects are documented and properly compensated.
Critics say worrying about the future is not enough, however. “After the World Bank has done its own review, it hasn't gone back and worked to identify these people, and find out how they were harmed and work for these people to properly remedy the harm,” Jessica Evans, a senior researcher on international financial institutions at Human Rights Watch (HRW), was quoted as saying in a German press report. “But they can't just promise to not make these mistakes in the future. It needs to go back and fix the mistakes that it's made in the past.” Other activists also noted that the World Bank has been unable to even track down how many victims its scheming has destroyed.
Some of the examples, though, are tragic. In an investigative report by the leftist Huffington Post, the in-depth article begins in Lagos, Nigeria, with over 100 armed police pouring into a slum to forcibly evict the already desperately poor residents. “If you love your life, move out!” the officers reportedly shouted at the bewildered, fleeing masses while menacingly cracking their batons against people’s shacks. Then the heavy machinery moved in and demolished all of the homes, with people’s belongings still inside, leaving the neighborhood in ruins within hours. There was no warning for the terrified residents — and no compensation for losing everything. And it was all to make way for an “urban renewal” scheme funded by the World Bank. Often, the tragedies take place under the guise of promoting “conservation” or “progress” of some sort or another.  
As The New American has been reporting for years, World Bank- and United Nations-backed “carbon credit” schemes to enrich cronies while purportedly dealing with alleged “global warming” have led to numerous well-documented atrocities against the poorest Africans, Latin Americans, and people worldwide. Last summer, for example, UN and World Bank carbon projects in Kenya resulted in ancient Sengwer communities having their homes torched by troops to make way for trees that would allow Westerners to purchase carbon offsets to assuage their misplaced guilt about CO2 emissions. A coalition of more than 65 non-profit organizations denounced the tragedy as “genocide.” The brutal forced evictions were “a direct result” of the World Bank plot and were “effectively funded by the World Bank,” according to a formal Sengwer complaint filed with the globalist organization.
Separately, in Kenya’s Mau forests, the Ogiek people, described as one of Africa’s last remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, were being hunted down and in some cases murdered by World Bank-backed officials, again for a carbon-credits scheme. Experts and activists warned that the nomadic people might be permanently exterminated if serious measures to restrain globalist organization-funded officials and their “climate projects” were not put in place. “The devastating plight of Kenya's indigenous peoples is symptomatic of the flawed approach to conservation on the part of international agencies,” explained journalist Nafeez Ahmed in an explosive article at the time for the U.K. Guardian, one of the leading cheerleaders for climate hysteria and totalitarian so-called “solutions” to alleged man-made warming. 
Despite efforts to downplay what more than a few critics described as “genocide” and massive land grabs funded by the World Bank, the atrocities had already been going on for years. As The New American reported in 2011, for example, a UN-accredited carbon-credit “company” funded by the World Bank and the EU was exposed in 2011 brutally evicting tens of thousands of Ugandan farmers to plant trees — again for carbon credits. Homes were burned to the ground, at least one with an eight-year-old child inside who burned to death, as residents were terrorized and threatened with execution if they refused to make way for the World Bank-backed carbon schemes. Authorities and the crony “company” involved in the atrocities said it was all for a good cause — fighting global warming — the New York Times reported at the time. 
“The cause and effect is perfectly clear; the Bank in its highly controversial role as both carbon credit financier and broker is aiding and abetting the forced relocation of an entire Indigenous People through its Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) which includes REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation),” noted the No REDD in Africa Network (NRAN), an alliance of 66 human-rights organizations that opposes the vicious carbon scheming — a scam aimed at enriching Western globalists such as Al Gore and bankers at Goldman Sachs. Most disturbing about the World Bank response, the network said, was the outfit’s offer to help the Kenyan government in matters of “involuntary” resettlement.
“The World Bank is both admitting its complicity in the forced relocation of the Sengwer People as well as offering to collude with the Kenyan government to cover-up cultural genocide,” the alliance explained, adding that the Sengwer were now “facing complete annihilation under the guise of ‘conservation’ under REDD.” The No REDD network also blasted the developments as “carbon colonialism.” The organization argued that the UN scheme was “emerging as a new form of colonialism, economic subjugation and a driver of land grabs so massive that they may constitute a continent grab.” Of course, the giant globalist land grabs are not limited to Africa. But Africans — currently the target of multiple UN depopulation programs, too — are among its most severely harmed victims.
After the investigation uncovered millions of displaced victims, government and World Bank officials rushed to promise stronger “safeguards” and “human rights” protections — even as the controversial entity continues to take taxpayer funds to enrich cronies, destroy poor people, and attack national sovereignty worldwide. A far better and simpler solution than more “safeguards,” though, would be to shut down the corruption-plagued World Bank entirely, along with all of its globalist partners in crime — the UN, the IMF, and more. At the very least, Congress should stop funding it all with the American people’s money.
Written by