Global Agenda 21...even if it's called Democracy, Freedom, or Protesting
Everyone should be aware of these groups. On the surface, Day Of Rage and others seems benevolent, and in fact almost Tea Party-ish. While many of these groups protest against their oppressive governments and fight for more freedom, they are at the same time pushing an oppressive global agenda of their own that vows to erase borders, religions, and individualism, and redistribute wealth.
Here are the stated goals of just one of their affiliates:
"A large majority of the American people consistently support the following agenda:
- Tax the rich and corporations
- End the wars, bring the troops home, cut military spending
- Protect the social safety net, strengthen Social Security and improved Medicare for all
- End corporate welfare for oil companies and other big business interests
- Transition to a clean energy economy, reverse environmental degradation
- Protect worker rights including collective bargaining, create jobs and raise wages
- Get money out of politics
Familiarize yourself with who they are and what they do, so when you see them, you don't get taken by surprise. Initially, the group "Anonymous" seemed to be stepping up and fighting oppression. But it has turned in to what most social groups turn in to...a tyrannical, dictatorial, regal, unilateral judge for the world who has sole discretion to decide who is right or wrong, who will be punished, and to what extent.
http://october2011.org/welcome (also called "Stop The Machine, Create A New World)
Keep vigilant and educated. These are our most effective defenses against social engineering Agenda 21.
Socialism in America
The Democratic Socialists of America released this list of admitted Socialists in their caucus, on October 1, 2009. This list is a couple of years old, but it points out that socialists are no longer hiding and are now in fact gaining control in American politics.
Co-Chairs Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02) Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01) Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL) Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01) Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03) Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08) Hon. André Carson (IN-07) Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL) Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) Hon. William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01) Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09) Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07) Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07) Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04) Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05) Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02) Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04) Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11) Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08) Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Hon. John Hall (NY-19) Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17) Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02) Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04) Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09) Hon. John Lewis (GA-05) Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02) Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3) Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07) Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07) Hon. James McGovern (MA-03) Hon. George Miller (CA-07) Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04) Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL) Hon. John Olver (MA-01) Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04) Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01) Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01) Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47) Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) Hon. José Serrano (NY-16) Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02) Hon. John Tierney (MA-06) Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL) Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Read the entire document released by DSA here:
How many more are not yet revealed? American citizens should demand the impeachment, resignation, or re-call of each of any of their elected officials who profess to be socialists. America was never meant to be socialist, and in fact, a belief in socialism is treason against the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obamarx
This article is from 2008, but with 2012 coming up, and new Marxists/Communists/Socialists still thinking Obama is a good idea, and are actually trying to get him re-elected, this might provide you with some arguing points:
(There are MANY MANY more sources on this issue, but this should be a good start)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996
UPDATE: WE WILL POST AT LEAST ONE MORE SOURCE COMING TOMORROW! Subscribe to feeds or bookmark page. In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional. After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party. On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page. From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party': "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races... Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)." Link To The New Party Update Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party. "New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. " Link To The November 1996 Progressive Populist Article The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter. "The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base... the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration." Link To DSA Article Obama's membership within the 'New Party' is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama's ties to the DSA's New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization. DIGG IT: http://digg.com/politics/Archives_confirm_Barack_Obama_belonged_to_socialist_party From Our Friends At American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html
Why is Socialism bad??
Socialism, communism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it, is a vile, dangerous ideology that demands a strict centralized command and control government, where the people surrender all of their rights to the almighty government. Government replaces God as savior of man and ultimate authority. People enjoy no individual freedom or sovereignty. Government decides what you eat or drink, where you live, how you work, what money you earn, what/if you drive, if you receive health care, and so on. It's a very diseased ideology. It has never succeeded in all the history of mankind.
Some say Socialism works in Canada, China, Sweden, Russia, Venezuela, etc. The citizens of these countries have no individual freedom, no rights to choose anything, are subject to their governments in every aspect of their lives, and have almost unbearable tax rates. The taxes benefit a few lucky individuals in the higher levels of government who do nothing to contribute to the well being of their nation. These countries only create any level of a successful economy by their CAPITALIST practices that they adopted from REPUBLICAN, CAPITALIST, FREE MARKET nations. These nations are also led by social monarchs and dictators who do not represent the interests of the citizens. Socialist countries always depend upon the economic and military strengths of capitalist countries.
The United States of America arose from non-existance to the most economically, militarily, educationally, and technoligially advanced nation that has EVER existed on the face of the earth in less than 400 years. Even the most poor in America enjoy a better life-style than some average third world country citizens. No other nation, regardless of the political system that has ruled it, or for how long, has EVER accomplished what has been accomplished within the United States of America. How can anyone say that our free market, republican system should be replaced by a socialist system that in it's best examples has never produced more than military tyrants?
Definition of DEMOCRACY
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Definition of REPUBLIC
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. 4. ( initial capital letter 
) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. 5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic. 5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republicAn Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.
These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A Democracy
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual's rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain's parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority's power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual's unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.
It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jefferson's.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called "Constitution"–in reality a mere Act of that body:
"All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
This topic–the danger to the people's liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson's above-quoted comments).
The Framing Convention's records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people's liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy's form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
"The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it's turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
"Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current."
It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.
Madison's observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people's forming their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers" (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual's God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America's greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America's greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams' "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the "Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people's consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual's rights–to endanger the people's liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.
From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.
Some beneficiary websites you might want to keep an eye on:
Happy Freedom!!!!
Regards, Karen Steelmon
(702) 238-5134 http://usteapartyunited.org twitter @usteapartyunite usteapartyunited@gmail.com http://lasvegasteaparty.org twitter @lvegasteaparty lasvegasteaparty@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment