FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today

To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Sorry Ben, We Couldn’t Keep It

Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety


Sorry Ben, We Couldn’t Keep It



As the story goes, after the final day of deliberations about the new Constitution being crafted in Philadelphia in 1787, a woman on the street asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic—if you can keep it.”



From his response, it almost sounds as if this founding father was not entirely confident that we would be able to keep the republican form of government, and the document that secured it, that had been crafted over the preceding months. Unfortunately, as the last few decades, and especially the last few years, of our nation’s history have shown, Franklin’s lack of confidence was well-placed. The United States of America gave up her freedom because we turned away from the republican virtues that are required for a free people to govern themselves and remain free. Without these virtues, any people will slide into tyranny and slavery. Indeed, pretty much all of what we consider modern “liberalism” (which is actually something of a misnomer) is anti-God, anti-freedom, anti-individualism, anti-self government, and anti-American, and has worked only to demoralize our people and undermine our liberties.

Benjamin Franklin said,

“Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”



This characterizes far too many Americans today. Half or more of the people of this nation would rather be well-cared for slaves than they would free men. They see no problem with, and in fact desire, gun control laws and other statues that prevent free citizens from defending themselves against both common criminals and oppressive government. Indeed, many in this nation want the government to spy on them and to “protect” them with militarized police forces conducting unconstitutional warrantless no-knock raids. For “safety.” Any person who wants gun control, who justifies NSA spying, who demands ever-increasing police powers for the state and who is willing to throw aside the 4th amendment to get them is a person who is unworthy of the great heritage of liberty that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers.

Republicanism and liberty require an active citizenry who are ready to protect themselves. WE are the militia, WE the people are the ones who should be keeping the government in check, not the other way around. WE are the ones who should hold the preponderant share of deadly force in our hands, not the police or unconstitutional executive agencies.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”—Patrick Henry

The basis of freedom is the willingness to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That’s a basis that much of our nation is losing.

The cornerstone of this sense of liberty, and that it is worth fighting for, comes from the belief that our rights and freedom do not come from man-made government, but from God Himself above,

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”—John Adams

“Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God?”—Thomas Jefferson

It is observable from our history that the more irreligious our people have become, both outwardly and inwardly, the less free our nation has been. Only those who are convinced that their rights come from above, and that not even human government can override or veto these rights, will have the courage of conviction to fight for them. No nation constituted of the godless will ever be able to maintain liberty because its people have no firm basis for which they can even believe in human liberty, much less stand for it. For them, the only greater power is government, and they will inevitably want government to give, give, give them everything, and therefore it will become bigger and bigger and bigger, and take away more and more and more from them.

The godless will have no devotion to religious liberty, or to any other liberty. This is what we see today with the homosexuals and their agenda. They hate religious liberty, and desire instead to force their agenda onto everyone—small business owners, private citizens, whoever. “Gay rights” and constitutional liberty cannot exist together. Neither can atheism and liberty, or abortion and liberty. When the one advances, the other must necessarily recede, for they are built on two completely different foundations. When you reject God as the Supreme Arbiter of man, you replace Him with subjective, biased, agenda-driven monstrosities that will necessarily abuse and destroy liberty.

Connected with this is the fact that freedom also requires the republican virtue of self-control. Those who will not govern their own passions and desires and actions will soon find themselves governed by others, either from the prison house or the state house. Self-government is nothing less than the willingness to restrain your own behavior so that you are not infringing upon the rights of others; of controlling one’s self so that you don’t have to be controlled by someone else.

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—John Adams

What Adams means here is that only people who are willing to restrain and control themselves can be rightly governed by a Constitution that grants to humankind an extraordinary amount of liberty. Liberty can easily degenerate into license; only those who exhibit the virtue of self-government can prevent it from doing so, and thereby prevent the loss of that liberty. For history shows that when men refuse to control themselves, there will inevitably be a necessity for more and more laws to keep their actions in check so that they do not harm others and cause society to slide into anarchy. If men did not vandalize each other’s property, there would be no need for laws against vandalism, and so forth. When man thinks himself free to “do as he pleases,” then the foundation of ordered liberty is destroyed, nobody’s rights are respected, and the government “has” to step in and restrain what man himself will not.


“Political interest can never be separated in the long run from moral right.”—Thomas Jefferson

That is why radical libertarianism, as well as social liberalism, both inevitably result in the exact sort of expansive, intrusive government that libertarians claim to hate. When you destroy the family and create conditions in which there is the “need” for welfare, for intrusive family courts, and so forth, you are creating a vacuum that rapacious government will fill. When you allow abortion and destroy respect for human life and for God’s sovereignty over that life, you create a situation in which you will see more crime, more degeneracy, and more “need” for a police state apparatus to be created. Self-control restrains not only the self, but also government. License and the loss of moral restraints are the best friends that tyrants and big-government communists have ever had.

Walking hand in hand with our loss of self-government is the refusal on the part of many in our nation to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. Yet, this personal responsibility is vitally necessary to maintaining a republic in which the citizens are free to exercise their liberties and choose their own leaders. Freedom can only exist when able-bodied citizens refuse to make themselves a burden to their fellow citizens. This is so because those who refuse to work for a living and earn their own bread will inevitably fall prey to scurrilous politicians promising them greater and greater “entitlements” to be confiscated from others. The moochers become addicted to big government and their victims see their right to their own produce taken away to support the ever-growing “Free Stuff Army” made up of the lazy, the selfish, and the envious. Freedom only exists when people are forced to shoulder their own earthly responsibilities, instead of shifting that burden off onto others.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.”—Thomas Jefferson

Yet, half of our country has turned into a legion of moochers and pickpockets. Instead of supporting policies that would get the government out of the way of the productive so that those productive persons could grow their business, create jobs, expand opportunities, and exercise the sort of enlightened self-interest that ends up benefiting us all, the Free Stuff Army is trying to kill this nation through welfare, ObamaCare, and other giveaway programs. We’ve gone from being a people who say “give me liberty or give me death!” to “give me my EBT card or I’m gonna riot!” This is incompatible with freedom, and unless we find a way to roll back the welfare state—even by radical means if necessary—we will see liberty disappear.

Ultimately, all of these things relate back to the basic virtue of a broad-based education in virtue and freedom. America is a well-educated country, in many ways. Yet, we are fast becoming a nation of educated fools, people with more degrees than a thermometer, but who don’t have a lick of sense about how to maintain and use the liberty that our forefathers fought for. Americans today lack a genuine civic education, which is vital necessity in a republic composed of free people. We have for a PRes__ent a “constitutional scholar” who has no understanding of the Constitution, and what’s more, who doesn’t care to know anything about it except for how to get around it when it’s inconvenient to him. The large majority of our people can’t even name the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights—do you think such people would be able to explain the context behind these amendments and why they are there, and why they are important? Most Americans have never even read the Federalist Papers—yet these documents are the key to understanding our Constitution. We don’t have to rely on so-called “constitutional scholars” to give their conflicting opinions about the Constitution—we have commentary on that document from some of the very men who wrote it.

Why is the right to a jury trial important? Why is it necessary that juries be able to refuse to uphold laws or to refuse to rule as the judge or the prosecutor wants them to? Why do we have the right to keep and bear arms? What was the basis for our religious liberty and why was this liberty so vitally important to the rest? Sadly, most Americans have never bothered to find out the answers to these and other questions, and many couldn’t care less. It is this reason that has led us to where we are. Modern “liberalism” thrives on ignorance and inability to think clearly and rationally. The rate at which our nation has moved Left in recent decades is directly proportional to the ignorance and apathy on the part of our people about the founding principles of liberty.

Frankly, if I could build a time machine, I would be sorely tempted to go back to that day in 1787 and apologize to Ben Franklin and the other Founders for our failure to hold fast to their hard work and sacrifices. “Ben,” I’d have to say, “we gave it a good run, but it looks like monarchy it is going to be.”

“Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.”—John Adams

The question for liberty lovers of all stripes is, “What are you going to do to change this?” Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety


Sorry Ben, We Couldn’t Keep It



As the story goes, after the final day of deliberations about the new Constitution being crafted in Philadelphia in 1787, a woman on the street asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic—if you can keep it.”



From his response, it almost sounds as if this founding father was not entirely confident that we would be able to keep the republican form of government, and the document that secured it, that had been crafted over the preceding months. Unfortunately, as the last few decades, and especially the last few years, of our nation’s history have shown, Franklin’s lack of confidence was well-placed. The United States of America gave up her freedom because we turned away from the republican virtues that are required for a free people to govern themselves and remain free. Without these virtues, any people will slide into tyranny and slavery. Indeed, pretty much all of what we consider modern “liberalism” (which is actually something of a misnomer) is anti-God, anti-freedom, anti-individualism, anti-self government, and anti-American, and has worked only to demoralize our people and undermine our liberties.

Benjamin Franklin said,

“Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”



This characterizes far too many Americans today. Half or more of the people of this nation would rather be well-cared for slaves than they would free men. They see no problem with, and in fact desire, gun control laws and other statues that prevent free citizens from defending themselves against both common criminals and oppressive government. Indeed, many in this nation want the government to spy on them and to “protect” them with militarized police forces conducting unconstitutional warrantless no-knock raids. For “safety.” Any person who wants gun control, who justifies NSA spying, who demands ever-increasing police powers for the state and who is willing to throw aside the 4th amendment to get them is a person who is unworthy of the great heritage of liberty that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers.

Republicanism and liberty require an active citizenry who are ready to protect themselves. WE are the militia, WE the people are the ones who should be keeping the government in check, not the other way around. WE are the ones who should hold the preponderant share of deadly force in our hands, not the police or unconstitutional executive agencies.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”—Patrick Henry

The basis of freedom is the willingness to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That’s a basis that much of our nation is losing.

The cornerstone of this sense of liberty, and that it is worth fighting for, comes from the belief that our rights and freedom do not come from man-made government, but from God Himself above,

“You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”—John Adams

“Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God?”—Thomas Jefferson

It is observable from our history that the more irreligious our people have become, both outwardly and inwardly, the less free our nation has been. Only those who are convinced that their rights come from above, and that not even human government can override or veto these rights, will have the courage of conviction to fight for them. No nation constituted of the godless will ever be able to maintain liberty because its people have no firm basis for which they can even believe in human liberty, much less stand for it. For them, the only greater power is government, and they will inevitably want government to give, give, give them everything, and therefore it will become bigger and bigger and bigger, and take away more and more and more from them.

The godless will have no devotion to religious liberty, or to any other liberty. This is what we see today with the homosexuals and their agenda. They hate religious liberty, and desire instead to force their agenda onto everyone—small business owners, private citizens, whoever. “Gay rights” and constitutional liberty cannot exist together. Neither can atheism and liberty, or abortion and liberty. When the one advances, the other must necessarily recede, for they are built on two completely different foundations. When you reject God as the Supreme Arbiter of man, you replace Him with subjective, biased, agenda-driven monstrosities that will necessarily abuse and destroy liberty.

Connected with this is the fact that freedom also requires the republican virtue of self-control. Those who will not govern their own passions and desires and actions will soon find themselves governed by others, either from the prison house or the state house. Self-government is nothing less than the willingness to restrain your own behavior so that you are not infringing upon the rights of others; of controlling one’s self so that you don’t have to be controlled by someone else.

“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—John Adams

What Adams means here is that only people who are willing to restrain and control themselves can be rightly governed by a Constitution that grants to humankind an extraordinary amount of liberty. Liberty can easily degenerate into license; only those who exhibit the virtue of self-government can prevent it from doing so, and thereby prevent the loss of that liberty. For history shows that when men refuse to control themselves, there will inevitably be a necessity for more and more laws to keep their actions in check so that they do not harm others and cause society to slide into anarchy. If men did not vandalize each other’s property, there would be no need for laws against vandalism, and so forth. When man thinks himself free to “do as he pleases,” then the foundation of ordered liberty is destroyed, nobody’s rights are respected, and the government “has” to step in and restrain what man himself will not.


“Political interest can never be separated in the long run from moral right.”—Thomas Jefferson

That is why radical libertarianism, as well as social liberalism, both inevitably result in the exact sort of expansive, intrusive government that libertarians claim to hate. When you destroy the family and create conditions in which there is the “need” for welfare, for intrusive family courts, and so forth, you are creating a vacuum that rapacious government will fill. When you allow abortion and destroy respect for human life and for God’s sovereignty over that life, you create a situation in which you will see more crime, more degeneracy, and more “need” for a police state apparatus to be created. Self-control restrains not only the self, but also government. License and the loss of moral restraints are the best friends that tyrants and big-government communists have ever had.

Walking hand in hand with our loss of self-government is the refusal on the part of many in our nation to take personal responsibility for themselves and their families. Yet, this personal responsibility is vitally necessary to maintaining a republic in which the citizens are free to exercise their liberties and choose their own leaders. Freedom can only exist when able-bodied citizens refuse to make themselves a burden to their fellow citizens. This is so because those who refuse to work for a living and earn their own bread will inevitably fall prey to scurrilous politicians promising them greater and greater “entitlements” to be confiscated from others. The moochers become addicted to big government and their victims see their right to their own produce taken away to support the ever-growing “Free Stuff Army” made up of the lazy, the selfish, and the envious. Freedom only exists when people are forced to shoulder their own earthly responsibilities, instead of shifting that burden off onto others.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.”—Thomas Jefferson

Yet, half of our country has turned into a legion of moochers and pickpockets. Instead of supporting policies that would get the government out of the way of the productive so that those productive persons could grow their business, create jobs, expand opportunities, and exercise the sort of enlightened self-interest that ends up benefiting us all, the Free Stuff Army is trying to kill this nation through welfare, ObamaCare, and other giveaway programs. We’ve gone from being a people who say “give me liberty or give me death!” to “give me my EBT card or I’m gonna riot!” This is incompatible with freedom, and unless we find a way to roll back the welfare state—even by radical means if necessary—we will see liberty disappear.

Ultimately, all of these things relate back to the basic virtue of a broad-based education in virtue and freedom. America is a well-educated country, in many ways. Yet, we are fast becoming a nation of educated fools, people with more degrees than a thermometer, but who don’t have a lick of sense about how to maintain and use the liberty that our forefathers fought for. Americans today lack a genuine civic education, which is vital necessity in a republic composed of free people. We have for a PRes__ent a “constitutional scholar” who has no understanding of the Constitution, and what’s more, who doesn’t care to know anything about it except for how to get around it when it’s inconvenient to him. The large majority of our people can’t even name the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights—do you think such people would be able to explain the context behind these amendments and why they are there, and why they are important? Most Americans have never even read the Federalist Papers—yet these documents are the key to understanding our Constitution. We don’t have to rely on so-called “constitutional scholars” to give their conflicting opinions about the Constitution—we have commentary on that document from some of the very men who wrote it.

Why is the right to a jury trial important? Why is it necessary that juries be able to refuse to uphold laws or to refuse to rule as the judge or the prosecutor wants them to? Why do we have the right to keep and bear arms? What was the basis for our religious liberty and why was this liberty so vitally important to the rest? Sadly, most Americans have never bothered to find out the answers to these and other questions, and many couldn’t care less. It is this reason that has led us to where we are. Modern “liberalism” thrives on ignorance and inability to think clearly and rationally. The rate at which our nation has moved Left in recent decades is directly proportional to the ignorance and apathy on the part of our people about the founding principles of liberty.

Frankly, if I could build a time machine, I would be sorely tempted to go back to that day in 1787 and apologize to Ben Franklin and the other Founders for our failure to hold fast to their hard work and sacrifices. “Ben,” I’d have to say, “we gave it a good run, but it looks like monarchy it is going to be.”

“Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.”—John Adams

The question for liberty lovers of all stripes is, “What are you going to do to change this?”

Tyranny does not appreciate dissent

Tyranny does not appreciate dissent


Silencing dissent by SWATing messengers of truth



“Fasten your seatbacks and tray tables in their full upright and locked position. We’ll be on the ground shortly.” That is the final warning aboard the aircraft known as America, which will be using runway 39A to taxi to the terminal of tyranny. Most of the passengers aboard the luxury aircraft have no clue to what awaits them, as the captain and crew have lulled the majority into a false trance of tranquility.





The few aboard the aircraft who were aware of their final destination tried to warn the other unsuspecting passengers, who have been immersed in their personal electronic devices, sleeping or watching the airline version of the corporate media, the mouthpieces for their fascist facilitators.

So it is in the United States today. Except those aboard this hijacked luxury aircraft who have been warning others of the danger ahead have been the targets of an increasingly aggressive campaign to silence them - to silence us - by any means necessary. This is the historical hallmark of the last warning of the final approach to the terminal of tyranny.

They are coming for us
Most people are familiar with the accounts of Glenn Greenwald’s partner (ironically named David Miranda, at least to those of us in America), being recently harassed at Heathrow airport in the UK after Greenwald began exposing the scope of the NSA spying campaign. Despite the warnings that this action portended, most people simply decided to turn their personal devices of diversion louder, effectively drowning out the warning bells tolling for the death of one of the most important freedoms in America - the freedom to tell the truth.



The warning bells have been ringing before and after, yet the masses entranced by the bells and whistles of their own devices have firmly kept them subjugated to their own normalcy biases. Even some internet bloggers, citizen journalists, and those daring to awaken a slumbering or deliberately distracted and deceived citizenry have felt somewhat insulated against the encroaching tyranny.

As we get closer to the terminal, however, that feeling of insulation is turning into a sense of dread, as the last threads of the fabric of one’s normalcy bias are being rendered to expose the awaiting tyranny. It is here that you will see that they are coming for you, for all of us, who refuse to advance their agenda of lies and distortions. It will very likely be a visit in the darkest hours of the night that you will be paid a visit by mercenaries of malevolence hired by the despots piloting this hijacked aircraft.

I cannot tell you whether you are next on the list, but I can tell you there is a list and the truth-tellers are on it. The modern day Paul Reveres are in their crosshairs, for they are the last obstacles to full-blown tyranny and fascism that awaits us. Once silenced, there will be no one left to warn the slumbering or the deceived. The bells will go silent.

They are coming for our sources

Lest you tend to discount this as mere hyperbole, I call your attention to a 15-year veteran reporter in Washington, D.C. named Audrey Hudson. Audrey Hudson was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize, and is now an independent journalist, shedding any corporate restraints to bring the truth to the American people. I’ve had the honor and privilege to speak on multiple occasions with Ms. Hudson, who once cited me in a Washington Times article she wrote about the curious nature of a “terrorist dry-run” aboard a U.S. flight.

Her work ethic, integrity, and persistent search for the truth is above reproach, and certainly well deserving of a Pulitzer Prize.  She is very detailed and extremely loyal to the truth, wherever it might lead. She is a leader in the charge for the truth about the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Air Marshall program, and the TSA.

It should be clear to all who understand what is taking place that the veteran investigative journalist was the victim of a campaign of intimidation by the fascists and their facilitators. It was a 4:30 a.m. surprise visit by several officers acting under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, under the thinly veiled pretext of a possible violation by her husband related to 27-year-old closed case, that shattered the tranquility of her home last August 6th.

These armor clad, gun wielding agents of the state shed all pretense of civility as they burst into her home to ostensibly search for guns illegally owned by her husband. It was some obscure reference on the fully compromised and cooperative social network known as Facebook that this egregious act of tyranny was justified. It is Big Brother at his finest, the merging of a corporate entity acting as the well-paid # of a burgeoning police state. Such an unwelcome and unexpected visit at 4:30 a.m. to the home of a respected journalist shows that there are no boundaries they will not cross, no civility they will not trample, and no doors they will not break down to silence the truth.

The real reason behind this venomous visit exists in the details. Ms. Hudson is now speaking out because of what the agents of this Gestapo-like tactic took from her home. While the search warrant was limited to any alleged guns on the premises - again - stemming from a quarter-century old incident reportedly involving her husband, their reach well exceeded their authority.

What was taken from the home of Audrey Hudson was more valuable than any gun. What was taken from Audrey Hudson, in addition to her freedoms as an American citizen and a Pulitzer Prize nominee for her journalistic prowess, were her pages of notes and names of sources inside and outside of government who had confidentially provided her information over the years. Information that we, as Americans, could rely upon to keep our government in check. The identities of brave men and women who risked their careers and even their lives to expose what was - and is - taking place in the terminal of tyranny.

They SWAT team that descended upon her home in the pre-dawn dark of the night robbed Ms. Hudson of more than her weapons. They robbed her of her ability to tell her sources that their identities are safe with her.

Her sources, now exposed to the Gestapo-like fascist government we have allowed to hijack America, now knows who the whistleblowers are. What quiet fate might await them once inside the terminal of tyranny? What damage has been caused to all of America by this overreach? How many will turn up destitute, or worse, dead, from the blowback?

The mission seems clear, especially since one of the armor clad night ninjas standing inside her home identified himself as a former air marshal official, a member of the agency that Ms. Hudson had exposed in her reporting of potential misdeeds. Payback, apparently, or at the very least, a conflict of interest. But then, they’ve already passed the point of even trying to conceal their concern for the rule of law.

We are at the terminal
As most aboard the luxury aircraft known as America are about to learn the hard way, we are almost at the terminal. Behind the gates of unconstitutional forces allowed to exist under the illusion of security lies the tyranny of Hitler’s Germany. The passengers who have attempted to rouse the slumbering and self-absorbed passengers during the flight will no longer have a voice if we don’t act soon.

We must stand behind those who have already been molested for telling the truth about what is taking place.
We must back Audrey Hudson and every one like her, and make sure her story is shouted from every rooftop in America.

Failure is not an option, for failure will result in our ultimate enslavement and death. Put down the iPads, iPods, and break out of the trance induced by the corporate media and pay attention, for we’ll be on the ground shortly. For others, they will be in the ground, for tyranny does not appreciate dissent. Tyranny does not appreciate dissent


Silencing dissent by SWATing messengers of truth



“Fasten your seatbacks and tray tables in their full upright and locked position. We’ll be on the ground shortly.” That is the final warning aboard the aircraft known as America, which will be using runway 39A to taxi to the terminal of tyranny. Most of the passengers aboard the luxury aircraft have no clue to what awaits them, as the captain and crew have lulled the majority into a false trance of tranquility.





The few aboard the aircraft who were aware of their final destination tried to warn the other unsuspecting passengers, who have been immersed in their personal electronic devices, sleeping or watching the airline version of the corporate media, the mouthpieces for their fascist facilitators.

So it is in the United States today. Except those aboard this hijacked luxury aircraft who have been warning others of the danger ahead have been the targets of an increasingly aggressive campaign to silence them - to silence us - by any means necessary. This is the historical hallmark of the last warning of the final approach to the terminal of tyranny.

They are coming for us
Most people are familiar with the accounts of Glenn Greenwald’s partner (ironically named David Miranda, at least to those of us in America), being recently harassed at Heathrow airport in the UK after Greenwald began exposing the scope of the NSA spying campaign. Despite the warnings that this action portended, most people simply decided to turn their personal devices of diversion louder, effectively drowning out the warning bells tolling for the death of one of the most important freedoms in America - the freedom to tell the truth.



The warning bells have been ringing before and after, yet the masses entranced by the bells and whistles of their own devices have firmly kept them subjugated to their own normalcy biases. Even some internet bloggers, citizen journalists, and those daring to awaken a slumbering or deliberately distracted and deceived citizenry have felt somewhat insulated against the encroaching tyranny.

As we get closer to the terminal, however, that feeling of insulation is turning into a sense of dread, as the last threads of the fabric of one’s normalcy bias are being rendered to expose the awaiting tyranny. It is here that you will see that they are coming for you, for all of us, who refuse to advance their agenda of lies and distortions. It will very likely be a visit in the darkest hours of the night that you will be paid a visit by mercenaries of malevolence hired by the despots piloting this hijacked aircraft.

I cannot tell you whether you are next on the list, but I can tell you there is a list and the truth-tellers are on it. The modern day Paul Reveres are in their crosshairs, for they are the last obstacles to full-blown tyranny and fascism that awaits us. Once silenced, there will be no one left to warn the slumbering or the deceived. The bells will go silent.

They are coming for our sources

Lest you tend to discount this as mere hyperbole, I call your attention to a 15-year veteran reporter in Washington, D.C. named Audrey Hudson. Audrey Hudson was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize, and is now an independent journalist, shedding any corporate restraints to bring the truth to the American people. I’ve had the honor and privilege to speak on multiple occasions with Ms. Hudson, who once cited me in a Washington Times article she wrote about the curious nature of a “terrorist dry-run” aboard a U.S. flight.

Her work ethic, integrity, and persistent search for the truth is above reproach, and certainly well deserving of a Pulitzer Prize.  She is very detailed and extremely loyal to the truth, wherever it might lead. She is a leader in the charge for the truth about the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Air Marshall program, and the TSA.

It should be clear to all who understand what is taking place that the veteran investigative journalist was the victim of a campaign of intimidation by the fascists and their facilitators. It was a 4:30 a.m. surprise visit by several officers acting under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, under the thinly veiled pretext of a possible violation by her husband related to 27-year-old closed case, that shattered the tranquility of her home last August 6th.

These armor clad, gun wielding agents of the state shed all pretense of civility as they burst into her home to ostensibly search for guns illegally owned by her husband. It was some obscure reference on the fully compromised and cooperative social network known as Facebook that this egregious act of tyranny was justified. It is Big Brother at his finest, the merging of a corporate entity acting as the well-paid # of a burgeoning police state. Such an unwelcome and unexpected visit at 4:30 a.m. to the home of a respected journalist shows that there are no boundaries they will not cross, no civility they will not trample, and no doors they will not break down to silence the truth.

The real reason behind this venomous visit exists in the details. Ms. Hudson is now speaking out because of what the agents of this Gestapo-like tactic took from her home. While the search warrant was limited to any alleged guns on the premises - again - stemming from a quarter-century old incident reportedly involving her husband, their reach well exceeded their authority.

What was taken from the home of Audrey Hudson was more valuable than any gun. What was taken from Audrey Hudson, in addition to her freedoms as an American citizen and a Pulitzer Prize nominee for her journalistic prowess, were her pages of notes and names of sources inside and outside of government who had confidentially provided her information over the years. Information that we, as Americans, could rely upon to keep our government in check. The identities of brave men and women who risked their careers and even their lives to expose what was - and is - taking place in the terminal of tyranny.

They SWAT team that descended upon her home in the pre-dawn dark of the night robbed Ms. Hudson of more than her weapons. They robbed her of her ability to tell her sources that their identities are safe with her.

Her sources, now exposed to the Gestapo-like fascist government we have allowed to hijack America, now knows who the whistleblowers are. What quiet fate might await them once inside the terminal of tyranny? What damage has been caused to all of America by this overreach? How many will turn up destitute, or worse, dead, from the blowback?

The mission seems clear, especially since one of the armor clad night ninjas standing inside her home identified himself as a former air marshal official, a member of the agency that Ms. Hudson had exposed in her reporting of potential misdeeds. Payback, apparently, or at the very least, a conflict of interest. But then, they’ve already passed the point of even trying to conceal their concern for the rule of law.

We are at the terminal
As most aboard the luxury aircraft known as America are about to learn the hard way, we are almost at the terminal. Behind the gates of unconstitutional forces allowed to exist under the illusion of security lies the tyranny of Hitler’s Germany. The passengers who have attempted to rouse the slumbering and self-absorbed passengers during the flight will no longer have a voice if we don’t act soon.

We must stand behind those who have already been molested for telling the truth about what is taking place.
We must back Audrey Hudson and every one like her, and make sure her story is shouted from every rooftop in America.

Failure is not an option, for failure will result in our ultimate enslavement and death. Put down the iPads, iPods, and break out of the trance induced by the corporate media and pay attention, for we’ll be on the ground shortly. For others, they will be in the ground, for tyranny does not appreciate dissent.

Time is precious – once it’s gone, it’s gone

Time is precious – once it’s gone, it’s gone


Living a life of no regrets with your time


You have 24 hours, 1440 minutes, or 86,400 seconds in a day – what do you do with your time?



Do you find yourself spending time on the wrong priorities and activities? Time is precious – once it’s gone, it’s gone. We can never get it back but we can invest our time for the future.  By all means we do need to have fun, relax and develop relationships but if our activities are producing little or no fruit in our life we might need to readjust our priorities. Living a life of no regrets is making a consistent choice in time to achieve life’s purpose. Your time defines who you are as a person and it ultimately defines your productivity.

We battle against time wasters every day. Time wasters zap every bit of time away from our purpose of living. My biggest time waster is watching morning and nightly news. The content is similar whether from 7:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. except with a few breaking news stores. If I add up the hours of watching both morning and nightly news, I have wasted 14 hours in a week. Could I do something else with that time?  I was recently talking with a lady who had spent 6 hours a day (42 hours per week) on the internet surfing, chatting on the phone or just hanging out with friends.  She felt her life was not accomplishing anything significant. She adjusted her time to eliminate a couple of hours per day to pursue meaningful activity; she states that she has been more productive in the last month but feels further adjustments can be made. What are your time wasters? Is it spending excessive time with the television, social media, family and friends, etc.? If you are seeking more in life, do a time inventory on non-productive activities (that does not produce or yield small results). Review them and see where you can substitute meaningful opportunities that yield results now and in the future. Use your gifts to its maximum ability.

One day we all will individually stand before our Creator to give account of our life. Does our time reflect what we are going to say?  We are on earth to accomplish a mission. Our time, talents, and resources are meaningful to Him. Our actions can and will change the course of life for someone. Life is nothing more than a ministry.  It’s part of a larger plan to fulfill His purpose and to meet the needs of others.  It’s time to adjust our time to start living a life of no regrets.

Make it a great day

Time is precious – once it’s gone, it’s gone


Living a life of no regrets with your time


You have 24 hours, 1440 minutes, or 86,400 seconds in a day – what do you do with your time?



Do you find yourself spending time on the wrong priorities and activities? Time is precious – once it’s gone, it’s gone. We can never get it back but we can invest our time for the future.  By all means we do need to have fun, relax and develop relationships but if our activities are producing little or no fruit in our life we might need to readjust our priorities. Living a life of no regrets is making a consistent choice in time to achieve life’s purpose. Your time defines who you are as a person and it ultimately defines your productivity.

We battle against time wasters every day. Time wasters zap every bit of time away from our purpose of living. My biggest time waster is watching morning and nightly news. The content is similar whether from 7:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. except with a few breaking news stores. If I add up the hours of watching both morning and nightly news, I have wasted 14 hours in a week. Could I do something else with that time?  I was recently talking with a lady who had spent 6 hours a day (42 hours per week) on the internet surfing, chatting on the phone or just hanging out with friends.  She felt her life was not accomplishing anything significant. She adjusted her time to eliminate a couple of hours per day to pursue meaningful activity; she states that she has been more productive in the last month but feels further adjustments can be made. What are your time wasters? Is it spending excessive time with the television, social media, family and friends, etc.? If you are seeking more in life, do a time inventory on non-productive activities (that does not produce or yield small results). Review them and see where you can substitute meaningful opportunities that yield results now and in the future. Use your gifts to its maximum ability.

One day we all will individually stand before our Creator to give account of our life. Does our time reflect what we are going to say?  We are on earth to accomplish a mission. Our time, talents, and resources are meaningful to Him. Our actions can and will change the course of life for someone. Life is nothing more than a ministry.  It’s part of a larger plan to fulfill His purpose and to meet the needs of others.  It’s time to adjust our time to start living a life of no regrets.

Make it a great day



Those Were the Good Old Days

Once again, the American people are paying for the ideas of idiots who desperately need adult supervision

Those Were the Good Old Days


In days gone by, whenever we looked at the incredibly dysfunctional political center of America, Washington, D.C., the most common question that came to mind was “What the hell were they thinking?!”  I, for one, am very glad those days are past us now.



Why would I say that those days are gone?  The answer is very simple, really.  We no longer ask “What the hell were they thinking?” because that question has become outmoded, passé, and not remotely relevant anymore.  It has been replaced with “Are these people even capable of any rational thought at all?”

Gone are the days when you might listen to a politician and tell yourself, “OK, he (or she, just to make sure that NOW doesn’t fire-bomb my house) isn’t telling me the whole truth.  There has to be a catch somewhere.  There has to be a minor tax increase buried inside the bill or something.  But what I’m hearing is at least the real gist of what they are proposing.”

Today, especially emanating from Distraction Central, or as it is more commonly known, the White House, what we are being told doesn’t even come close to the reality.  Close?  What comes, on a regular basis, out of the mouth of the President, or Jay Carney or any of the President’s cabinet secretaries or special czars is so detached from truth that it’s not even in the same time zone.  You really can’t even call it lies.  Lies is too mild a word to use for these utterances.  I checked my dictionary and thesaurus, and their recommended alternates would all be too kind in describing what these people have done.  The closest that I came to an appropriate description would be that they told a WHOPPER!



What do they do when they are caught in an outright and outrageous lie? Why these paragons of civic virtue simply man-up and openly admit the problem—and that it was all the fault of Republicans or the Tea Party or al Qaeda for all I know.  Or they even blame the American people themselves for being so gullible that they believed what they were being told.

They might be correct in assigning blame to the American public.  Ordinary, but lo-info, Americans bought the story (stories?) that something (actually anything) that Obama recommended as policy “won’t add one dime to the deficit”.

As Obama claimed with his healthcare proposals, you will not be inconvenienced in the slightest way.  You would never have your current insurance (you know, the one that you like) cancelled.  You won’t have to change doctors from your current, trusted to physician to one trained in Islamabad or some other third world nation and who you have trouble understanding.

Oh, but you’re not worried about any of that because you have a really, really great health insurance package that was negotiated by your union leaders, the same guys who told you that ObamaCare was going to be so great?  Yeah, well, about that, they must have forgotten to tell you that you’ll be taxed at about 40% of the total cost of that healthcare.  It would seem that they don’t want anyone’s health insurance to be too good.  It would probably hurt someone’s feelings that the Obama mandated policies were not quite up to that standard.

Obama also claimed that his mandatory “new and improved” health insurance policies would reduce the cost to the average American by $2,500.  Except that the monthly payments are rising faster than the national debt.  Those payments aren’t the only thing that’s skyrocketing.  The deductible amount, while free from any lifetime limit, are in fact going up ten-fold or more.  If under the insurance that you currently have, the one that you like, the one with the doctor that you don’t want to lose your old deductible was, say, $500 a year.  So you had to take $40 a month, on average, to cover the initial costs of your health care.  Reports in the media indicate that some policies that people have lost due to the mandates of ObamaCare showed that the deductible for those policies not only wiped out the $2,500 “savings” that Obama, Pelosi and Reid promised, they actually added to the total out-of-pocket cost of health care by up to an additional $3,500 a year over what you’ve been experiencing.

That’s right, some of the new deductibles are up to $6,000 annually.

No there is no lifetime cap on reimbursements under the new ObamaCare fantasy, er, I mean law, but the $40 a month you might have paid with your old, sub-standard and utterly inadequate policy now requires $500 a month in out-of-pocket spending.  Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s $500 a month out of YOUR pocket.  Not the pocket of the rich millionaires and billionaires.  Not out of your employer’s group plan.  Not out of thin air, or plucked off that tree that money grows on.  Your pocket.

Perhaps some genius could explain to me the difference between what Obama and his talentless crew refer to as (a) a sub-standard plan that only covers catastrophic care where you have to provide a significant amount for your own health care out of your own pocket and (b) his vastly improved healthcare scheme where you still have to provide a significant amount for your own health care out of your own pocket.  I’ll be honest (since I’m not a politician) I don’t see a world of difference.

In fact I don’t see any difference. 


Except that the government has interfered once again with the free market.  And once again, screwed it up. 

And once again, the American people are paying for the ideas of idiots who desperately need adult supervision, although I personally would prefer that they received a long spell of solitary confinement.

Once again, the American people are paying for the ideas of idiots who desperately need adult supervision

Those Were the Good Old Days


In days gone by, whenever we looked at the incredibly dysfunctional political center of America, Washington, D.C., the most common question that came to mind was “What the hell were they thinking?!”  I, for one, am very glad those days are past us now.



Why would I say that those days are gone?  The answer is very simple, really.  We no longer ask “What the hell were they thinking?” because that question has become outmoded, passé, and not remotely relevant anymore.  It has been replaced with “Are these people even capable of any rational thought at all?”

Gone are the days when you might listen to a politician and tell yourself, “OK, he (or she, just to make sure that NOW doesn’t fire-bomb my house) isn’t telling me the whole truth.  There has to be a catch somewhere.  There has to be a minor tax increase buried inside the bill or something.  But what I’m hearing is at least the real gist of what they are proposing.”

Today, especially emanating from Distraction Central, or as it is more commonly known, the White House, what we are being told doesn’t even come close to the reality.  Close?  What comes, on a regular basis, out of the mouth of the President, or Jay Carney or any of the President’s cabinet secretaries or special czars is so detached from truth that it’s not even in the same time zone.  You really can’t even call it lies.  Lies is too mild a word to use for these utterances.  I checked my dictionary and thesaurus, and their recommended alternates would all be too kind in describing what these people have done.  The closest that I came to an appropriate description would be that they told a WHOPPER!



What do they do when they are caught in an outright and outrageous lie? Why these paragons of civic virtue simply man-up and openly admit the problem—and that it was all the fault of Republicans or the Tea Party or al Qaeda for all I know.  Or they even blame the American people themselves for being so gullible that they believed what they were being told.

They might be correct in assigning blame to the American public.  Ordinary, but lo-info, Americans bought the story (stories?) that something (actually anything) that Obama recommended as policy “won’t add one dime to the deficit”.

As Obama claimed with his healthcare proposals, you will not be inconvenienced in the slightest way.  You would never have your current insurance (you know, the one that you like) cancelled.  You won’t have to change doctors from your current, trusted to physician to one trained in Islamabad or some other third world nation and who you have trouble understanding.

Oh, but you’re not worried about any of that because you have a really, really great health insurance package that was negotiated by your union leaders, the same guys who told you that ObamaCare was going to be so great?  Yeah, well, about that, they must have forgotten to tell you that you’ll be taxed at about 40% of the total cost of that healthcare.  It would seem that they don’t want anyone’s health insurance to be too good.  It would probably hurt someone’s feelings that the Obama mandated policies were not quite up to that standard.

Obama also claimed that his mandatory “new and improved” health insurance policies would reduce the cost to the average American by $2,500.  Except that the monthly payments are rising faster than the national debt.  Those payments aren’t the only thing that’s skyrocketing.  The deductible amount, while free from any lifetime limit, are in fact going up ten-fold or more.  If under the insurance that you currently have, the one that you like, the one with the doctor that you don’t want to lose your old deductible was, say, $500 a year.  So you had to take $40 a month, on average, to cover the initial costs of your health care.  Reports in the media indicate that some policies that people have lost due to the mandates of ObamaCare showed that the deductible for those policies not only wiped out the $2,500 “savings” that Obama, Pelosi and Reid promised, they actually added to the total out-of-pocket cost of health care by up to an additional $3,500 a year over what you’ve been experiencing.

That’s right, some of the new deductibles are up to $6,000 annually.

No there is no lifetime cap on reimbursements under the new ObamaCare fantasy, er, I mean law, but the $40 a month you might have paid with your old, sub-standard and utterly inadequate policy now requires $500 a month in out-of-pocket spending.  Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s $500 a month out of YOUR pocket.  Not the pocket of the rich millionaires and billionaires.  Not out of your employer’s group plan.  Not out of thin air, or plucked off that tree that money grows on.  Your pocket.

Perhaps some genius could explain to me the difference between what Obama and his talentless crew refer to as (a) a sub-standard plan that only covers catastrophic care where you have to provide a significant amount for your own health care out of your own pocket and (b) his vastly improved healthcare scheme where you still have to provide a significant amount for your own health care out of your own pocket.  I’ll be honest (since I’m not a politician) I don’t see a world of difference.

In fact I don’t see any difference. 


Except that the government has interfered once again with the free market.  And once again, screwed it up. 

And once again, the American people are paying for the ideas of idiots who desperately need adult supervision, although I personally would prefer that they received a long spell of solitary confinement.



Chilling assertion of government control.

Coming to America and soon By 02-14-2014 we the people will be silenced or so they believe 

Chilling assertion of government control.

UK Government tightens its grip on print and online media


Following in the footsteps of the infamous words of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, British politicians from all sides are set not to let a good crisis go to waste as they push what amounts to censorship legislation against the UK press.



The move comes following the News of the World scandal that revealed high level phone hacking leading to the paper’s closure. In response Westminster, with the leading three parties in agreement, has decided to introduce much more sweeping regulations to control stories, particularly ones that may be damaging them.

The move is a chilling assertion of government control. It is highly possible under the new Charter that recent major stories like the one about Ralph Miliband, Marxist father of the Leader of the Opposition, would not have seen the light of day. Likewise the scandals of parliamentary expense abuses may well have been nixed if this legislation was in place 4-5 years ago, had MP’s exerted pressure to silence it. (some had claimed at the time it was not in the public interest)

Indeed, the BBC reported Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre as saying the row between Ed Miliband and his newspaper over an article about the Labour leader’s late father showed why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

The problem is that proponents have argued for this based on journalistic malpractice in their methods of obtaining news, such as when one reporter dressed as a Doctor in order to access a car crash victim and take pictures. But the legislation, a Royal Charter, leaves the door open for an independent panel to penalize opinion, and not just in the print media but in online material as well including blogs with multiple writers.

The Royal Charter status of the new organization will codify it as a body with set values that can only be changed by parliament. This is the biggest sticking point for the British Press since it means MP’s will gain sway over Newspaper Editors, and whereas it will take a two-third majority for parliament to make changes, a majority vote can abolish the two-third requirement.

The new regulator is the result of the ‘Leveson inquiry’ (into the News of the World) and will replace the existing industry run watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The guidelines in the Royal Charter are not very specific, the details will be created by the regulator itself, except that a ‘recognition panel’ would be set up to guarantee the regulator remains impartial. The new regulator, unlike the current PCC (7 of 17 members), will have no serving Newspaper Editors; and the majority of members must be non-journalists.

The new regulator’s code must protect freedom of speech. But it would cover how journalists behave in getting hold of information, their respect for privacy when there’s no public interest justification, and accuracy. These latter points contain the potential for abuse of free speech since ‘public interest justification’ can be used to veto all kinds of coverage as can ‘respect for privacy’.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors said: “You can’t have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians. The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries. People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what’s going on here at the moment with horror.”

The Industry Steering Group agreed in a statement that said: “This remains a charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians,” and it’s “impossible” to see that a regulator “imposed and controlled by politicians” could be “voluntary or independent”.

Deputy Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman tried to quell fears saying “(the) last thing” the government wanted was to create a situation “where politicians control the press” – and urged the newspapers to “try out” the proposed system. “It’s quite ironic” she said “because a system that’s quite like this operates in Ireland and applies to our UK press for their Irish editions - they sign up to it and it hasn’t caused any problems of politicians controlling the press.”

Ms. Harman may have hit the nail on the head with one of Rush Limbaugh’s ‘random acts of journalism’ by a politician trying to restrict the press. The fact that we don’t here of any scandal via the press in Ireland may be indicative of the fact that people are afraid to report anything controversial. The Irish Republic’s recent debt scandals went largely unnoticed until the financial bombs went off.

Then Ms. Harman suggests that the media should “try out” the programme. Maybe she would like to offer journalists a one year money-back guarantee, just in case someone hasn’t read and understood all the legislation properly.

The new regulator will function more like its broadcasting cousin OFCOM which regulates TV and radio content. Essentially anyone can complain to OFCOM that material broadcast is offensive in some way and there is an investigation. The Royal Charter broadly expands who can complain and who has to be taken seriously. As a result, writes Andrew Gilligan of The Telegraph “papers may still run the big scoops like MPs expenses. But investigations into a less accessible subject, such as Islamist extremism may not be worth the risk.”

As with OFCOM Newspapers will not have to sign-up with the new regulator! However, other legislation has already required the courts to view those that do far more favourably in libel cases. Most controversially, Papers not in ‘the system’ will usually have to pay a complainant’s costs even if they prevail in the case.

It is unclear at this point if the Newspaper Industry in Britain will sign-up and comply or not. They may pursue their own watchdog plans and try to use it’s memberships in the courts as evidence of industry accountability.

Hugo Rifkind, wrting in The Times, said: “When newspapers exist only online, when your daily print run has morphed into the daily broadcast of an iPad app, why not broadcast it from somewhere beyond regulation’s reach? Personally, I like the idea of pirate newspaper ships, beaming news from just offshore.”

Prominent political blogger Guido Fawkes, offender of many politicians, uses foreign servers and bases himself in his native Republic of Ireland. The government says the location of the servers is not relevant, but Fawkes (real name Paul Staines) is one of a number of writers using a publishing company in the bi-federation Caribbean state of Nevis where it takes an in-person appearance and US$10,000 to file a libel suit.

For now the industry is out of options as two judges today dismissed their application to seek judicial review of what they described as the Privy Council’s “unfair, irrational and unlawful” decision to reject the newspaper industry’s own proposals for a rival charter. The court said the merits of their legal case were “at best weak”.

According to Sky News, London’s High Court also refused the publishers an application for an injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council this afternoon with plans to seek the Queen’s approval for the cross-party charter, which is bitterly opposed by much of the industry. The Privy Council is a group of leading ministers who initiate much policy in the first place, hence they already agree with it, and then rubber-stamp it at the end of the process.

To really sock it to the Newspapers three former News of the World journalists pleaded guilty today to phone-hacking, the scandal that got this whole thing started in the first place. Ex-chief correspondent Neville Thurlbeck, former assistant news editor James Weatherup, and ex-news editor Greg Miskiw pleaded guilty to conspiracy to intercept communications.

The prosecution had opened its case “journalists are no more entitled to break the criminal law than anybody else”. This is true! And the journalists are being held accountable for their actions! But what has followed from the government is a far more reaching move designed to move power from the Editor’s desk to the halls of Westminster.

Coming to America and soon By 02-14-2014 we the people will be silenced or so they believe 

Chilling assertion of government control.

UK Government tightens its grip on print and online media


Following in the footsteps of the infamous words of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, British politicians from all sides are set not to let a good crisis go to waste as they push what amounts to censorship legislation against the UK press.



The move comes following the News of the World scandal that revealed high level phone hacking leading to the paper’s closure. In response Westminster, with the leading three parties in agreement, has decided to introduce much more sweeping regulations to control stories, particularly ones that may be damaging them.

The move is a chilling assertion of government control. It is highly possible under the new Charter that recent major stories like the one about Ralph Miliband, Marxist father of the Leader of the Opposition, would not have seen the light of day. Likewise the scandals of parliamentary expense abuses may well have been nixed if this legislation was in place 4-5 years ago, had MP’s exerted pressure to silence it. (some had claimed at the time it was not in the public interest)

Indeed, the BBC reported Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre as saying the row between Ed Miliband and his newspaper over an article about the Labour leader’s late father showed why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

The problem is that proponents have argued for this based on journalistic malpractice in their methods of obtaining news, such as when one reporter dressed as a Doctor in order to access a car crash victim and take pictures. But the legislation, a Royal Charter, leaves the door open for an independent panel to penalize opinion, and not just in the print media but in online material as well including blogs with multiple writers.

The Royal Charter status of the new organization will codify it as a body with set values that can only be changed by parliament. This is the biggest sticking point for the British Press since it means MP’s will gain sway over Newspaper Editors, and whereas it will take a two-third majority for parliament to make changes, a majority vote can abolish the two-third requirement.

The new regulator is the result of the ‘Leveson inquiry’ (into the News of the World) and will replace the existing industry run watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). The guidelines in the Royal Charter are not very specific, the details will be created by the regulator itself, except that a ‘recognition panel’ would be set up to guarantee the regulator remains impartial. The new regulator, unlike the current PCC (7 of 17 members), will have no serving Newspaper Editors; and the majority of members must be non-journalists.

The new regulator’s code must protect freedom of speech. But it would cover how journalists behave in getting hold of information, their respect for privacy when there’s no public interest justification, and accuracy. These latter points contain the potential for abuse of free speech since ‘public interest justification’ can be used to veto all kinds of coverage as can ‘respect for privacy’.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors said: “You can’t have a new system of regulation which is drawn up by and imposed by politicians. The things which are being proposed at the moment would be totally unconstitutional in the US and other countries. People in other countries, not just journalists, are looking at what’s going on here at the moment with horror.”

The Industry Steering Group agreed in a statement that said: “This remains a charter written by politicians, imposed by politicians and controlled by politicians,” and it’s “impossible” to see that a regulator “imposed and controlled by politicians” could be “voluntary or independent”.

Deputy Labour Party Leader Harriet Harman tried to quell fears saying “(the) last thing” the government wanted was to create a situation “where politicians control the press” – and urged the newspapers to “try out” the proposed system. “It’s quite ironic” she said “because a system that’s quite like this operates in Ireland and applies to our UK press for their Irish editions - they sign up to it and it hasn’t caused any problems of politicians controlling the press.”

Ms. Harman may have hit the nail on the head with one of Rush Limbaugh’s ‘random acts of journalism’ by a politician trying to restrict the press. The fact that we don’t here of any scandal via the press in Ireland may be indicative of the fact that people are afraid to report anything controversial. The Irish Republic’s recent debt scandals went largely unnoticed until the financial bombs went off.

Then Ms. Harman suggests that the media should “try out” the programme. Maybe she would like to offer journalists a one year money-back guarantee, just in case someone hasn’t read and understood all the legislation properly.

The new regulator will function more like its broadcasting cousin OFCOM which regulates TV and radio content. Essentially anyone can complain to OFCOM that material broadcast is offensive in some way and there is an investigation. The Royal Charter broadly expands who can complain and who has to be taken seriously. As a result, writes Andrew Gilligan of The Telegraph “papers may still run the big scoops like MPs expenses. But investigations into a less accessible subject, such as Islamist extremism may not be worth the risk.”

As with OFCOM Newspapers will not have to sign-up with the new regulator! However, other legislation has already required the courts to view those that do far more favourably in libel cases. Most controversially, Papers not in ‘the system’ will usually have to pay a complainant’s costs even if they prevail in the case.

It is unclear at this point if the Newspaper Industry in Britain will sign-up and comply or not. They may pursue their own watchdog plans and try to use it’s memberships in the courts as evidence of industry accountability.

Hugo Rifkind, wrting in The Times, said: “When newspapers exist only online, when your daily print run has morphed into the daily broadcast of an iPad app, why not broadcast it from somewhere beyond regulation’s reach? Personally, I like the idea of pirate newspaper ships, beaming news from just offshore.”

Prominent political blogger Guido Fawkes, offender of many politicians, uses foreign servers and bases himself in his native Republic of Ireland. The government says the location of the servers is not relevant, but Fawkes (real name Paul Staines) is one of a number of writers using a publishing company in the bi-federation Caribbean state of Nevis where it takes an in-person appearance and US$10,000 to file a libel suit.

For now the industry is out of options as two judges today dismissed their application to seek judicial review of what they described as the Privy Council’s “unfair, irrational and unlawful” decision to reject the newspaper industry’s own proposals for a rival charter. The court said the merits of their legal case were “at best weak”.

According to Sky News, London’s High Court also refused the publishers an application for an injunction to stop ministers going to the Privy Council this afternoon with plans to seek the Queen’s approval for the cross-party charter, which is bitterly opposed by much of the industry. The Privy Council is a group of leading ministers who initiate much policy in the first place, hence they already agree with it, and then rubber-stamp it at the end of the process.

To really sock it to the Newspapers three former News of the World journalists pleaded guilty today to phone-hacking, the scandal that got this whole thing started in the first place. Ex-chief correspondent Neville Thurlbeck, former assistant news editor James Weatherup, and ex-news editor Greg Miskiw pleaded guilty to conspiracy to intercept communications.

The prosecution had opened its case “journalists are no more entitled to break the criminal law than anybody else”. This is true! And the journalists are being held accountable for their actions! But what has followed from the government is a far more reaching move designed to move power from the Editor’s desk to the halls of Westminster.



My Advice to Californians; Get Out Now

Get out now while you can afford the gas to load up the van and head out
My Advice to Californians; Get Out Now


If you live in California, I have a bit of advice. Get out now while you can afford the gas to load up the van and head north or east. You won’t be alone.



According to “Crazifornia: How California is Destroying Itself and Why It Matters to America”, about 150,000 Californians have been fleeing the state each year of late. “In fact,” wrote Laer Pearce, “Los Angeles alone has lost more households than New York, Miami, and, incredibly, the economically decimated city of Detroit…combined.”

The tide of traffic leaving the state is likely to increase. According to a news release from Earthjustice, one of the innumerable environmental organizations bent on destroying every form of energy that has fueled the growth of the American economy, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has “finalized a groundbreaking decision to build innovative high-tech energy storage systems that will lead California toward a future of clean, renewable energy and away from dependence on fossil fuels.”

You remember fossil fuels, oil, natural gas, and coal. The “clean, renewable” energies are wind and solar because, of course, the sun shines all the time and the wind blows all the time. Or not.



By definition, energy “storage systems” can use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy; these processes range from battery technologies to energy storage within compressed air or molten salt. If that sounds bizarre, it is.

According to Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney, “Clean, renewable energy sources will shape our future, whether the dirty antiquated fossil fuels industry likes it or not, so it’s excellent to see California getting there first. It took years by environmental advocates and state regulators to reach this point.”

Wind and solar mandates are breaking Europe’s electric utilities
Actually, Europe has been there for some time now. In England’s Yorkshire Dales, they’re tearing down four wind turbines that have been around for twenty years and “have not worked in years.” Indeed, across Europe there is a lot of buyer’s remorse for having embraced wind and solar. As Marc Morano, the editor of ClimateDepot.com, noted in an October 17 article, “Wind and solar mandates are breaking Europe’s electric utilities.”

“Last week the CEOs of Europe’s ten largest utilities finally cried uncle and called for a halt to wind and solar subsidies. Short of that, they want subsidies of their own. They want to be paid, in essence, not to produce power.” Thanks to mandates to use electricity from wind and solar Europe’s energy costs increased 17% for consumers and 21% for industry in the last four years.

California, in addition to requiring comparable use of wind and solar power while pushing to close coal-fired plants and keep some nuclear plants shuttered, will require its utilities to purchase 1.3 megawatts of “energy storage” power by 2020.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that “The first-in-a-nation mandate is expected to spur innovation in emerging storage technologies, from batteries to flywheels. Once large quantities of energy can be stored, the electric grid can make better use of solar, wind and other technologies that generate sporadically rather than in a steady flow, and can better manage disruptions from unpredictable events such as storms and wildfires.”

This is another very expensive Green pipedream that, like other California initiatives, would prove impossible to achieve and will be abandoned or ignored.

Since neither wind nor solar produce electricity in a steady, predictable fashion that enables utilities to ensure a flow of electricity to consumers, “energy storage” is the new, idiotic, alternative way of providing electricity that has been in effect since Edison first invented the turbines to produce it.

There is, simply put, no reason to require “energy storage” if “dirty, antiquated fossil fuels” were used. Wind and solar provide just over 3% of the electricity used in the U.S.

According to the Western Region Deputy Director of the Sierra Club, Evan Gillespie, “Fossil fuels like natural gas are a dead end for the people of California, the power companies, and the entire planet.”  If you listened to Strela Cervas, Coordinator at the California Environmental Justice Alliance, fossil fuel use is a conspiracy against “low income communities and communities of color overburdened by pollution, in particular from power plants. California does not need any new gas-fired power plants.”

Those low income communities might not agree, along with all the rest of the Californians, in the wake of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. While California strives to save the state from a warming that has not been occurring for more than 15 years, the new mandate that 33% of the state’s energy come from wind and solar is estimated to cost $114 billion, all of which will come out of the pockets of energy consumers.

According to Pearce, “Legislators, regulators, lawyers and environmentalists have driven up the cost of doing business in the Golden State until it has become 30% greater than in the neighboring states.” The result of 40 years of anti-business (and anti-energy) policy has caused a decline in the state’s standard of living. “California’s median household income plummeted by 9%—nearly twice the national average between 2006 and 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”

This is the kind of environmental insanity that has been at work at the federal level since Obama was elected in 2008. Billions have been lost in loans to wind and solar companies that went bankrupt within months and years. Think Solyndra. Now apply that same insanity to the whole of the nation as the administration continues its “war on coal” and actually laments the growing access to natural gas and oil due to hydraulic fracking technology.

War on the provision of electricity; the lifeblood of the nation’s capacity to function
The U.S. will produce more oil than Saudi Arabia this year. It has several centuries’ worth of affordable coal, scads of natural gas, and could expand its nuclear power generation if it wanted.

California is leading the way as it drives out its citizens and businesses, leaving behind only those too poor to leave; those dependent on a range of welfare programs that “redistribute” money from “the rich” and the middle class. They are turning the entire state into Detroit.

It is a war on the provision of electricity; the lifeblood of the nation’s capacity to function.

Get out now while you can afford the gas to load up the van and head out
My Advice to Californians; Get Out Now


If you live in California, I have a bit of advice. Get out now while you can afford the gas to load up the van and head north or east. You won’t be alone.



According to “Crazifornia: How California is Destroying Itself and Why It Matters to America”, about 150,000 Californians have been fleeing the state each year of late. “In fact,” wrote Laer Pearce, “Los Angeles alone has lost more households than New York, Miami, and, incredibly, the economically decimated city of Detroit…combined.”

The tide of traffic leaving the state is likely to increase. According to a news release from Earthjustice, one of the innumerable environmental organizations bent on destroying every form of energy that has fueled the growth of the American economy, the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has “finalized a groundbreaking decision to build innovative high-tech energy storage systems that will lead California toward a future of clean, renewable energy and away from dependence on fossil fuels.”

You remember fossil fuels, oil, natural gas, and coal. The “clean, renewable” energies are wind and solar because, of course, the sun shines all the time and the wind blows all the time. Or not.



By definition, energy “storage systems” can use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy; these processes range from battery technologies to energy storage within compressed air or molten salt. If that sounds bizarre, it is.

According to Will Rostov, an Earthjustice attorney, “Clean, renewable energy sources will shape our future, whether the dirty antiquated fossil fuels industry likes it or not, so it’s excellent to see California getting there first. It took years by environmental advocates and state regulators to reach this point.”

Wind and solar mandates are breaking Europe’s electric utilities
Actually, Europe has been there for some time now. In England’s Yorkshire Dales, they’re tearing down four wind turbines that have been around for twenty years and “have not worked in years.” Indeed, across Europe there is a lot of buyer’s remorse for having embraced wind and solar. As Marc Morano, the editor of ClimateDepot.com, noted in an October 17 article, “Wind and solar mandates are breaking Europe’s electric utilities.”

“Last week the CEOs of Europe’s ten largest utilities finally cried uncle and called for a halt to wind and solar subsidies. Short of that, they want subsidies of their own. They want to be paid, in essence, not to produce power.” Thanks to mandates to use electricity from wind and solar Europe’s energy costs increased 17% for consumers and 21% for industry in the last four years.

California, in addition to requiring comparable use of wind and solar power while pushing to close coal-fired plants and keep some nuclear plants shuttered, will require its utilities to purchase 1.3 megawatts of “energy storage” power by 2020.

The San Jose Mercury News reported that “The first-in-a-nation mandate is expected to spur innovation in emerging storage technologies, from batteries to flywheels. Once large quantities of energy can be stored, the electric grid can make better use of solar, wind and other technologies that generate sporadically rather than in a steady flow, and can better manage disruptions from unpredictable events such as storms and wildfires.”

This is another very expensive Green pipedream that, like other California initiatives, would prove impossible to achieve and will be abandoned or ignored.

Since neither wind nor solar produce electricity in a steady, predictable fashion that enables utilities to ensure a flow of electricity to consumers, “energy storage” is the new, idiotic, alternative way of providing electricity that has been in effect since Edison first invented the turbines to produce it.

There is, simply put, no reason to require “energy storage” if “dirty, antiquated fossil fuels” were used. Wind and solar provide just over 3% of the electricity used in the U.S.

According to the Western Region Deputy Director of the Sierra Club, Evan Gillespie, “Fossil fuels like natural gas are a dead end for the people of California, the power companies, and the entire planet.”  If you listened to Strela Cervas, Coordinator at the California Environmental Justice Alliance, fossil fuel use is a conspiracy against “low income communities and communities of color overburdened by pollution, in particular from power plants. California does not need any new gas-fired power plants.”

Those low income communities might not agree, along with all the rest of the Californians, in the wake of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. While California strives to save the state from a warming that has not been occurring for more than 15 years, the new mandate that 33% of the state’s energy come from wind and solar is estimated to cost $114 billion, all of which will come out of the pockets of energy consumers.

According to Pearce, “Legislators, regulators, lawyers and environmentalists have driven up the cost of doing business in the Golden State until it has become 30% greater than in the neighboring states.” The result of 40 years of anti-business (and anti-energy) policy has caused a decline in the state’s standard of living. “California’s median household income plummeted by 9%—nearly twice the national average between 2006 and 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.”

This is the kind of environmental insanity that has been at work at the federal level since Obama was elected in 2008. Billions have been lost in loans to wind and solar companies that went bankrupt within months and years. Think Solyndra. Now apply that same insanity to the whole of the nation as the administration continues its “war on coal” and actually laments the growing access to natural gas and oil due to hydraulic fracking technology.

War on the provision of electricity; the lifeblood of the nation’s capacity to function
The U.S. will produce more oil than Saudi Arabia this year. It has several centuries’ worth of affordable coal, scads of natural gas, and could expand its nuclear power generation if it wanted.

California is leading the way as it drives out its citizens and businesses, leaving behind only those too poor to leave; those dependent on a range of welfare programs that “redistribute” money from “the rich” and the middle class. They are turning the entire state into Detroit.

It is a war on the provision of electricity; the lifeblood of the nation’s capacity to function.



How do you simulate physical attacks during emergency drills?

“GridX 2”:
How do you simulate physical attacks during emergency drills?


 

If the National Spy Agency (NSA), which spies on all—citizenry and foreign nations alike—and therefore knows all, then why is it necessary for the emergency drill planned to take place across North America on November 13-14 “to test the resiliency of the U.S. power grid to withstand major damage caused by a natural disaster or deliberate attack?”



“GridEx 2” is coming soon to a town near you.

“That is why thousands of utility workers, business executives, National Guard officers, F.B.I. antiterrorism experts and officials from government agencies in the United States, Canada and Mexico are preparing for an emergency drill in November that will simulate physical attacks and cyberattacks that could take down large sections of the power grid.” (New York Times, Aug. 16, 2013)

According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdon, “no telephone in America makes call without leaving record with NSA.”

Ditto for emails.



Nothing is safe from prying government eyes.  Only yesterday, the FBI fined, threatened and forced Ladar Levison to suspend the operation of his secure email service, Lavabit LLC, telling the entrepreneur that his users were more likely to trust the government than him. (Daily Caller).

So, is the network keeping the lights on in North America somehow NSA exempt?

We’ll know the results of simulated cyberattacks during “GridEx 2” instantly.  It’s called no power.

But how do you simulate physical attacks, and will we ever read the results about any simulated physical attacks gone wrong?

What about terrorists planning a takedown of the grid.  Would November 13-14 appeal to them on the basis that their terrorism could be conveniently blamed on the “GridEx 2” massive simulation?

How do thousands of utility workers, business executives, bureaucrats communicate with each other if their simulation exercise actually takes down large parts of the power grid in Canada, the United Sates or Mexico?

Other than the New York Times and Facebook pickups on “GridEx 2” massive simulation plans,  do the populations of all three countries have any say when organizations decide to conduct dry runs?

“In excess of 150 entities have agreed to take part in the simulated event, called “GridEx 2,” the Times reports.

“GridEx 2” sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, but it is related to GridEx 2011, which took place November 16-17 in 2011, and involved not thousands but only 75 companies.

“Fears about the possible detonation of a nuclear warhead in the skies above the United States, for the purposes of creating an electromagnetic pulse aimed at sizzling electronics on the ground, have led a number of public figures to call for significant steps to strengthen the power grid. Ex-CIA head R. James Woolsey is planning a campaign to convince state governments to pass laws requiring utilities to harden their electronics against potential EMP attacks. (NYT)

“A key objective of GridEx 2 is to learn how governments would handle a loss of electrical power that is large enough to drastically affect the delivery of common and essential goods and services.”

Some say we’re about to find out without the simulation on November 1, 2013, when a 5 percent, across the board cut to America’s Food Stamp program begins.

Two weeks ago people panicked when EBT cards failed at supermarket cash outs.

Since October 1, the whole world had a front row seat to the colossal failure of Barack Obama’s signature, multi-million-dollar healthcare website.

Rehearsals, no matter how massive cannot change the fact Governments goof up all the time.

Air Force officers entrusted with the launch keys to long-range nuclear missiles have been caught twice this year leaving open a blast door that is intended to help prevent a terrorist or other intruder from entering their underground command post, Air Force officials said, according to the Associated Press.

“Government and utility companies have discussed in recent years how challenging it can be to protect the power grid, which is involved in nearly all aspects of modern life. It is managed in large part by a patchwork of regional and city authorities and privately owned firms.The grid is essential for almost everything, but it is mostly controlled by investor-owned companies or municipal or regional agencies. Ninety-nine percent of military facilities rely on commercial power, according to the White House.

“Some utility-sector officials blame the government for not sharing intelligence about threats to the power grid. In response, government leaders have recommended that some utility heads apply for security clearances that would allow them access to classified information.”

Meanwhile, what we are seeing is government administration by dress rehearsal.

Some people call them false flag operations. “GridX 2”:
How do you simulate physical attacks during emergency drills?


 

If the National Spy Agency (NSA), which spies on all—citizenry and foreign nations alike—and therefore knows all, then why is it necessary for the emergency drill planned to take place across North America on November 13-14 “to test the resiliency of the U.S. power grid to withstand major damage caused by a natural disaster or deliberate attack?”



“GridEx 2” is coming soon to a town near you.

“That is why thousands of utility workers, business executives, National Guard officers, F.B.I. antiterrorism experts and officials from government agencies in the United States, Canada and Mexico are preparing for an emergency drill in November that will simulate physical attacks and cyberattacks that could take down large sections of the power grid.” (New York Times, Aug. 16, 2013)

According to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdon, “no telephone in America makes call without leaving record with NSA.”

Ditto for emails.



Nothing is safe from prying government eyes.  Only yesterday, the FBI fined, threatened and forced Ladar Levison to suspend the operation of his secure email service, Lavabit LLC, telling the entrepreneur that his users were more likely to trust the government than him. (Daily Caller).

So, is the network keeping the lights on in North America somehow NSA exempt?

We’ll know the results of simulated cyberattacks during “GridEx 2” instantly.  It’s called no power.

But how do you simulate physical attacks, and will we ever read the results about any simulated physical attacks gone wrong?

What about terrorists planning a takedown of the grid.  Would November 13-14 appeal to them on the basis that their terrorism could be conveniently blamed on the “GridEx 2” massive simulation?

How do thousands of utility workers, business executives, bureaucrats communicate with each other if their simulation exercise actually takes down large parts of the power grid in Canada, the United Sates or Mexico?

Other than the New York Times and Facebook pickups on “GridEx 2” massive simulation plans,  do the populations of all three countries have any say when organizations decide to conduct dry runs?

“In excess of 150 entities have agreed to take part in the simulated event, called “GridEx 2,” the Times reports.

“GridEx 2” sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, but it is related to GridEx 2011, which took place November 16-17 in 2011, and involved not thousands but only 75 companies.

“Fears about the possible detonation of a nuclear warhead in the skies above the United States, for the purposes of creating an electromagnetic pulse aimed at sizzling electronics on the ground, have led a number of public figures to call for significant steps to strengthen the power grid. Ex-CIA head R. James Woolsey is planning a campaign to convince state governments to pass laws requiring utilities to harden their electronics against potential EMP attacks. (NYT)

“A key objective of GridEx 2 is to learn how governments would handle a loss of electrical power that is large enough to drastically affect the delivery of common and essential goods and services.”

Some say we’re about to find out without the simulation on November 1, 2013, when a 5 percent, across the board cut to America’s Food Stamp program begins.

Two weeks ago people panicked when EBT cards failed at supermarket cash outs.

Since October 1, the whole world had a front row seat to the colossal failure of Barack Obama’s signature, multi-million-dollar healthcare website.

Rehearsals, no matter how massive cannot change the fact Governments goof up all the time.

Air Force officers entrusted with the launch keys to long-range nuclear missiles have been caught twice this year leaving open a blast door that is intended to help prevent a terrorist or other intruder from entering their underground command post, Air Force officials said, according to the Associated Press.

“Government and utility companies have discussed in recent years how challenging it can be to protect the power grid, which is involved in nearly all aspects of modern life. It is managed in large part by a patchwork of regional and city authorities and privately owned firms.The grid is essential for almost everything, but it is mostly controlled by investor-owned companies or municipal or regional agencies. Ninety-nine percent of military facilities rely on commercial power, according to the White House.

“Some utility-sector officials blame the government for not sharing intelligence about threats to the power grid. In response, government leaders have recommended that some utility heads apply for security clearances that would allow them access to classified information.”

Meanwhile, what we are seeing is government administration by dress rehearsal.

Some people call them false flag operations.

Remember, a true patriot is one who upholds the principles upon which his country was founded,

Remember, a true patriot is one who upholds the principles upon which his country was founded, not the power of those who have hijacked the nation.


Obama, NSA Spying and the Dangers of Secretive, Authoritarian Government


  “The perception here is of a United States where security has trumped liberty, intelligence agencies run amok (vacuuming up data of friend and foe alike), and the once-admired “checks and balances” built into American governance and studied by European schoolchildren have become, at best, secret reviews of secret activities where opposing arguments get no hearing.” – New York Times columnist Roger Cohen

Recent reports indicating that President Obama was aware of and personally approved an NSA program that involved spying on the personal communications of various international leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have once again highlighted the deception and intransigence of the Obama administration in dealing with the revelations that the National Security Agency has been acting outside the bounds of the law, sucking up electronic communications the world over.



While this may come as a shock to most Americans, I’ve been writing about the NSA’s illegal surveillance tactics since the 1980s, which features prominently in my new book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. However, this latest development in the spying saga—that the NSA has been aiming its surveillance activities at the citizens of allied countries, including France and Germany—has thrown a kink into the Obama administration’s attempts at maintaining a cozy relationship with its foreign allies.

Specifically, according to comments by an anonymous “high-level” NSA official to a German newspaper, President Barack Obama personally approved spying on the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. These comments come despite claims made by the White House last week that Obama had no idea that the NSA had tapped her phone. The NSA has denied the reports that Obama was personally briefed on the Merkel spying operation in 2010, but did not indicate whether he may have learned about it via other means.



According to a report by German newspaper Der Spiegel, the NSA had been spying on Merkel since 2002, before she was Chancellor and acting as an opposition leader. The NSA had also allegedly been spying on French and German citizens, an accusation which prompted both countries to demand an explanation from the United States about the purpose and reasoning behind the spying programs. The US spying on German communications was apparently conducted from the American embassy in Berlin.

According to another anonymous US official, the United States was engaged in espionage on 35 world leaders, but most of these programs have been terminated or are set to be terminated. This official also claims that Obama was unaware of the program, and that the NSA had chosen not to brief him on all their various spying operations, saying, “These decisions are made at the NSA. The president doesn’t sign off on this stuff.”

Whatever the exact truth of the matter, there are two possible scenarios


Whatever the exact truth of the matter, there are two possible scenarios. Either the President was fully aware of the extent of the NSA’s criminal activities, which violate both domestic and international law, and was willing to go along with them or the NSA has amassed so much power in Washington that it literally operates outside the chain of command and above the rule of law. In either case, we face a tyrannical force the likes of which have never been seen in the United States before.

In just one month (January 2013), the NSA spied on some 125 billion phone calls worldwide, 3 billion of which originated in the United States. In addition to German and French citizens, the NSA has targeted Spain as well, sweeping up some 60 million communications in the span of one month.

Of course, this global surveillance program should come as no surprise. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has spent over $500 billion on an intelligence community that, according to the Washington Post, constitutes an “espionage empire with resources and a reach beyond those of any adversary, sustained even now by spending that rivals or exceeds the levels at the height of the Cold War.” The CIA and NSA have both begun to engage in so-called “offensive cyber operations,” which involves hacking into foreign computer networks in order to either steal information or sabotage the network itself.

The NSA has been conducting worldwide surveillance for quite some time
In fact, the NSA has been conducting worldwide surveillance for quite some time. Echelon, a global electronic surveillance network that allows security agencies of Great Britain and the United States, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to collect and exploit intelligence collected worldwide, was developed by the NSA. Created in the heat of the Cold War, Echelon intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. It does so by positioning “listening stations” (including land bases, satellites and ships sailing the seven seas) all over the globe to capture data, satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic.

Although Echelon was originally established as an international spy system, suspicions arose at the dawn of the new millennium that its intelligence ambitions might have turned inward. A Congressional investigation determined that Echelon had not only turned inward, targeting such peaceful political groups as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several Christian groups, but had actually broadened the scope of its mission to include political espionage. It also became a means of benefiting big business and advancing personal political agendas. For example, in March 2003, the British Observer asserted that the Bush Administration had used its Echelon satellite station in New Zealand to spy on council members from Angola, Bulgaria, Camaroon, Chile, Guinea and Pakistan in its effort to garner support for the impending war against Iraq.

The other main object of Echelon seems to be corporate espionage. In 1993, President Bill Clinton directed the NSA to use Echelon facilities to spy on Japanese car manufacturers developing zero-emission cars and to pass on critical information to the three largest American car manufacturers, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. In the 1990s, German firm Enercon, a wind generator manufacturer, developed innovative wind related technology. However, by the time it was ready to sell the technology to the US, the US rival company had already patented a similar project. Later, an NSA employee admitted to stealing the technology through phone taps and computer link line spying.

Given the NSA’s history, there is nothing innocent about a worldwide program of surveillance. Rather, this is the dawning of a new era, an expansion of the Cold War mentality of tracking an unknown enemy which only exists in the imagination of those who seek more power. Al-Qaeda’s capability to penetrate the American homeland is nil. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are miniscule. There is no justification for these programs, which is why they have been conducted and approved in secret. Any public scrutiny would demonstrate their ineffectiveness and uselessness.

Look what happened in the ‘30s: the rise of fascism, the rise of communism, the rise of imperialism
Unfortunately, our so-called representatives in Congress are doing very little to combat the menace of unlawful surveillance, going out of their way to justify these programs and give them the trappings of legitimacy. For example, Rep. Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee, made the bizarre claim that the rise of fascism in Europe in the early 20th century could be attributed to the United States failing to spy on its allies: “We said: ‘We’re not going to do any kinds of those things, that would not be appropriate’ Look what happened in the ‘30s: the rise of fascism, the rise of communism, the rise of imperialism. We didn’t see any of it. And it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.”

Battles are being waged between civil liberties-minded representatives and law-and-order types such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is drafting a bill that would codify the NSA’s program of collecting the metadata of American communications. She supports her position by making nonsensical statements such as, “People believe it’s surveillance, but it’s not.”

Contrary to Feinstein’s claims, the NSA is collecting personal information on every single person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. The NSA is able to crack the security of all major smartphones, including iPhone, Android, and Blackberry devices, which gives agents access to information such as contacts, SMS messages, and location data. The NSA is also suspected to be engaging in so-called “man in the middle” attacks, which involve NSA agents pretending to be legitimate web services (in this case search engine Google) in order to obtain private information. These and other programs, such as PRISM and XKEYSCORE, open our private lives to government agents who are only a computer click away from knowing what we do on a daily basis.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether you want an open, transparent and therefore free government or a closed, secretive, authoritarian regime. For those who claim to want open and free government, it’s time to restore the rightful balance in government and make it clear to our leaders that these spying programs are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Remember, a true patriot is one who upholds the principles upon which his country was founded, not the power of those who have hijacked the nation.

Remember, a true patriot is one who upholds the principles upon which his country was founded, not the power of those who have hijacked the nation.


Obama, NSA Spying and the Dangers of Secretive, Authoritarian Government


  “The perception here is of a United States where security has trumped liberty, intelligence agencies run amok (vacuuming up data of friend and foe alike), and the once-admired “checks and balances” built into American governance and studied by European schoolchildren have become, at best, secret reviews of secret activities where opposing arguments get no hearing.” – New York Times columnist Roger Cohen

Recent reports indicating that President Obama was aware of and personally approved an NSA program that involved spying on the personal communications of various international leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have once again highlighted the deception and intransigence of the Obama administration in dealing with the revelations that the National Security Agency has been acting outside the bounds of the law, sucking up electronic communications the world over.



While this may come as a shock to most Americans, I’ve been writing about the NSA’s illegal surveillance tactics since the 1980s, which features prominently in my new book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. However, this latest development in the spying saga—that the NSA has been aiming its surveillance activities at the citizens of allied countries, including France and Germany—has thrown a kink into the Obama administration’s attempts at maintaining a cozy relationship with its foreign allies.

Specifically, according to comments by an anonymous “high-level” NSA official to a German newspaper, President Barack Obama personally approved spying on the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. These comments come despite claims made by the White House last week that Obama had no idea that the NSA had tapped her phone. The NSA has denied the reports that Obama was personally briefed on the Merkel spying operation in 2010, but did not indicate whether he may have learned about it via other means.



According to a report by German newspaper Der Spiegel, the NSA had been spying on Merkel since 2002, before she was Chancellor and acting as an opposition leader. The NSA had also allegedly been spying on French and German citizens, an accusation which prompted both countries to demand an explanation from the United States about the purpose and reasoning behind the spying programs. The US spying on German communications was apparently conducted from the American embassy in Berlin.

According to another anonymous US official, the United States was engaged in espionage on 35 world leaders, but most of these programs have been terminated or are set to be terminated. This official also claims that Obama was unaware of the program, and that the NSA had chosen not to brief him on all their various spying operations, saying, “These decisions are made at the NSA. The president doesn’t sign off on this stuff.”

Whatever the exact truth of the matter, there are two possible scenarios


Whatever the exact truth of the matter, there are two possible scenarios. Either the President was fully aware of the extent of the NSA’s criminal activities, which violate both domestic and international law, and was willing to go along with them or the NSA has amassed so much power in Washington that it literally operates outside the chain of command and above the rule of law. In either case, we face a tyrannical force the likes of which have never been seen in the United States before.

In just one month (January 2013), the NSA spied on some 125 billion phone calls worldwide, 3 billion of which originated in the United States. In addition to German and French citizens, the NSA has targeted Spain as well, sweeping up some 60 million communications in the span of one month.

Of course, this global surveillance program should come as no surprise. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has spent over $500 billion on an intelligence community that, according to the Washington Post, constitutes an “espionage empire with resources and a reach beyond those of any adversary, sustained even now by spending that rivals or exceeds the levels at the height of the Cold War.” The CIA and NSA have both begun to engage in so-called “offensive cyber operations,” which involves hacking into foreign computer networks in order to either steal information or sabotage the network itself.

The NSA has been conducting worldwide surveillance for quite some time
In fact, the NSA has been conducting worldwide surveillance for quite some time. Echelon, a global electronic surveillance network that allows security agencies of Great Britain and the United States, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to collect and exploit intelligence collected worldwide, was developed by the NSA. Created in the heat of the Cold War, Echelon intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. It does so by positioning “listening stations” (including land bases, satellites and ships sailing the seven seas) all over the globe to capture data, satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic.

Although Echelon was originally established as an international spy system, suspicions arose at the dawn of the new millennium that its intelligence ambitions might have turned inward. A Congressional investigation determined that Echelon had not only turned inward, targeting such peaceful political groups as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several Christian groups, but had actually broadened the scope of its mission to include political espionage. It also became a means of benefiting big business and advancing personal political agendas. For example, in March 2003, the British Observer asserted that the Bush Administration had used its Echelon satellite station in New Zealand to spy on council members from Angola, Bulgaria, Camaroon, Chile, Guinea and Pakistan in its effort to garner support for the impending war against Iraq.

The other main object of Echelon seems to be corporate espionage. In 1993, President Bill Clinton directed the NSA to use Echelon facilities to spy on Japanese car manufacturers developing zero-emission cars and to pass on critical information to the three largest American car manufacturers, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. In the 1990s, German firm Enercon, a wind generator manufacturer, developed innovative wind related technology. However, by the time it was ready to sell the technology to the US, the US rival company had already patented a similar project. Later, an NSA employee admitted to stealing the technology through phone taps and computer link line spying.

Given the NSA’s history, there is nothing innocent about a worldwide program of surveillance. Rather, this is the dawning of a new era, an expansion of the Cold War mentality of tracking an unknown enemy which only exists in the imagination of those who seek more power. Al-Qaeda’s capability to penetrate the American homeland is nil. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are miniscule. There is no justification for these programs, which is why they have been conducted and approved in secret. Any public scrutiny would demonstrate their ineffectiveness and uselessness.

Look what happened in the ‘30s: the rise of fascism, the rise of communism, the rise of imperialism
Unfortunately, our so-called representatives in Congress are doing very little to combat the menace of unlawful surveillance, going out of their way to justify these programs and give them the trappings of legitimacy. For example, Rep. Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee, made the bizarre claim that the rise of fascism in Europe in the early 20th century could be attributed to the United States failing to spy on its allies: “We said: ‘We’re not going to do any kinds of those things, that would not be appropriate’ Look what happened in the ‘30s: the rise of fascism, the rise of communism, the rise of imperialism. We didn’t see any of it. And it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.”

Battles are being waged between civil liberties-minded representatives and law-and-order types such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who is drafting a bill that would codify the NSA’s program of collecting the metadata of American communications. She supports her position by making nonsensical statements such as, “People believe it’s surveillance, but it’s not.”

Contrary to Feinstein’s claims, the NSA is collecting personal information on every single person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. The NSA is able to crack the security of all major smartphones, including iPhone, Android, and Blackberry devices, which gives agents access to information such as contacts, SMS messages, and location data. The NSA is also suspected to be engaging in so-called “man in the middle” attacks, which involve NSA agents pretending to be legitimate web services (in this case search engine Google) in order to obtain private information. These and other programs, such as PRISM and XKEYSCORE, open our private lives to government agents who are only a computer click away from knowing what we do on a daily basis.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether you want an open, transparent and therefore free government or a closed, secretive, authoritarian regime. For those who claim to want open and free government, it’s time to restore the rightful balance in government and make it clear to our leaders that these spying programs are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Remember, a true patriot is one who upholds the principles upon which his country was founded, not the power of those who have hijacked the nation.



President Obama was never dishonest with the American people?

President Obama was never dishonest with the American people?

 Big Day of Big Lies

Those Americans who watched Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s testimony yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee might be forgiven for thinking they were in an alternate universe. Despite her assertion that Americans should “hold me accountable” for the ongoing debacle, Sebelius later claimed she was never warned by anyone that the scheduled roll out of the Healthcare.gov website would be the disaster it turned out to be.



Furthermore, she stood by the assertion that the president has been “keeping his promise” with regard to the idea that Americans who liked their insurance policies could keep them. Fittingly, during the entire three and a half hours the Secretary testified, the Healthcare.gov website was down.

Sebelius’s contention that she was not warned of the problems with the website is a lie. CNN reveals they obtained a confidential report showing that while website creator CGI executives were publicly testifying about achieving milestones, they warned the administration a month before the launch that there were “a number of open risks and issues” associated with the website.

Undoubtedly, Americans are far more interested in the far bigger lie perpetrated by this administration, highlighted by the exchange between Sebelius and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “Before, during and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, so is he keeping his promise?” asked Blackburn. “Yes, he is,” Sebelius replied. When Blackburn noted the reality that 300,000 people in Florida and 28,000 in Tennessee had their policies terminated, Sebelius contended that “they can get health insurance.”



The president didn’t promise people they could get health insurance. “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” Obama said in remarks made to the American Medical Association in 2009.

In 2010, after the law’s enactment, Obama made the same promise. “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.” he said.

Nothing changed in 2012. “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance,” reiterated Obama.

Whitehouse: “If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.”
On Tuesday, it was Press Secretary Jay Carney’s turn when he claimed the president “was clear about a basic fact. If you had insurance that you liked on the individual market, and you wanted to keep that insurance…you could,” he contended. The Whitehouse.gov website made the same assertion as recently as yesterday. “If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.”

As NBC News reports, the Obama administration knew as early as 2010 that assertion was a lie. Despite promising that some insurance policies in non-compliance with the current law would be “grandfathered” into the bill, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened the provisions for that grandfathering three months after the bill’s passage. If any part of a policy was significantly changed, such as a deductible or copay, it no longer qualified for grandfather status.

According to the Washington Post, “significant” meant as little as a $5.00 change in one’s copay, “plus the medical cost of inflation” (which would have been $5.20 based on last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent), or any increase in the coinsurance rate above what it was when the law went into effect on March 23, 2010. Moreover, in the bill itself, there was a statement noting that the normal turnover in the insurance market would cause “40 to 67 percent” of customers to lose their policies.

Despite this reality, Sebelius essentially testified the American public was not only aware of these technical changes, but that they represented a “wide corridor” allowing Americans to keep their existing policies. Thus, contended Sebelius, the president was being truthful.

The Post inadvertently reveals the utter absurdity of that contention, noting that those technical changes Sebelius cites are contained in Vol. 75 of the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, three months after the bill was passed, and the regulations themselves are listed on pages 34,560 through 34,562.

At a later point in her testimony, Sebelius contradicted herself, conceding that Americans remain largely uninformed about the healthcare bill, heartily agreeing with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that a “real marketing campaign” was necessary to make sure Americans, especially the young who must sign up to keep the system viable, get better informed about the healthcare website.

Doyle was at least affable. Most of his Democratic colleagues were far more interested in praising and protecting Sebelius, as well as castigating Republicans, than getting answers about the problems plaguing the roll out of the program. Republicans were alternately accused of “sabotaging the bill,” “rooting for failure,” and being on “the wrong side of history.” Democrats further extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, and the great benefits it was providing to millions of Americans, even as Sebelius steadfastly refused to release any figures regarding the number of people who have actually signed up for insurance. When asked if the administration would lift a gag order and allow insurance companies to provide those numbers to the public, Sebelius said no.

One of the more pointed exchanges occurred between Sebelius and Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI). Addressing security issues with the website, Rodgers got Sebelius to admit that she did not know whether or not each code fix being added to the website was tested for security. Sebelius insisted that security is “an ongoing operation,” yet when Rodgers asked if the system had been tested “end to end,” Sebelius didn’t know the answer.

Rodgers did. He had documentation stating that the website would be rolled out despite the fact that security was only partially completed and that “this constitutes a risk that must be accepted before the marketplace day one operations.” Rodgers was incensed. “You accepted a risk on behalf of every user of this computer that put their personal financial information at risk, because you did not have even the most basic end-to-end test on the security of this system,” he said. When Rodgers asked if Sebelius would commit to shutting down the system until an end-to-end test of security was conducted she declined, and insisted that ongoing testing is underway. In other words, no end-to-end test has been conducted, and Americans’ confidential information remains at risk—all of which is apparently fine with Sebelius.

Perhaps it is fine because Sebelius has her own healthcare plan, a point emphasized by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO). He told Sebelius that he had rejected the Cadillac coverage offered Congress, and enrolled in a plan in the individual market, only to discover that plan was being discontinued due to ObamaCare. He asked the Secretary why she hadn’t subjected herself to a similar experience, drawing the only applause during the entire hearing. Sebelius claimed she wasn’t eligible, because she was covered by her employer.

The Washington Post discovered that Sebelius was wrong. She could get coverage, but it wouldn’t be as good as the deal as she gets now. After further challenges by other Republicans, Sebelius contended she would “gladly join the exchange” if she didn’t already have her federal plan.

In other words, she can, but she won’t.

With help from Democrats, the Secretary repeatedly extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, noting that even those who are losing their current insurance will be getting a better, more comprehensive product instead. That has been the fallback answer for this administration, even as it has been revealed that more than two million Americans are losing their current healthcare plans, a total more than triple the number signing up for ObamaCare. “What we’re seeing now is reality coming into play,” said industry expert Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many Americans are unaware that this is occurring because ObamaCare mandates 10 minimum standards, whether Americans need a particular kind of coverage or not.

Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) drove that point home at the hearing, noting that some single men have to have maternity coverage included in their policy. Sebelius stated that this was necessary because “an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not.” Thus, those buying insurance must pay for coverage they will never use, so other people can have coverage. In other words, in addition to taxpayer subsidies included in ObamaCare, those buying insurance are also subsidizing other insurance purchasers.

During the course of the hearing, Sebelius promised the website would be completely operational by November 30, but admitted there are no fallback options for those who have lost their insurance, even if they are unable to sign up for a new policy before their current one runs out.

As far as Sebelius taking responsibility for the current failure of the website, one should remember a similar statement was made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with regard to Benghazi. Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility amounted to exactly nothing. Since Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced late yesterday afternoon that the “President has complete confidence in Secretary Sebelius,” she is likely to “suffer” the same fate.

Meanwhile, as is always the case with this administration and their media sycophants, the real action on healthcare is occurring largely under the radar. While Americans are having difficulty keeping old policies or buying new ones, Medicaid enrollment—as in enrollment in a single payer government run healthcare program—is exploding. The numbers are stark. In Washington, 87 percent of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled in the healthcare system signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, it was 82 percent of 26,000 new enrollments, and New York, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent of that state’s 37,000 new enrollments. “Medicaid experts say they’re not sure why they’re seeing the lopsided enrollment numbers, but point out it’s easier to enroll in Medicaid than private insurance,” reports CBS, apparently oblivious to obvious correlation.

What some Americans are not oblivious to is the threat this represents. “Either the private insurance enrollments come up somewhere around the expected amount or there’s going to be a problem…You need a volume and you need a mix of people that are healthy as well as high users in private insurance, in order to have it be sustainable,” said Gail Wilensky, a former Medicaid director.

What Americans need to ask themselves is this: is the chaos surrounding the implementation of the healthcare bill, coupled with the explosion of Medicaid enrollments enabled by the same bill, happening by accident or design? “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President,” said Barack Obama in 2007, at an SEIU union Healthcare Forum. Obama envisioned a 10 to 15 year rollout, and some critics contend the current ineptitude is happening too fast for Americans to swallow a wholesale transition to single-payer government run healthcare.

Yet millions of people losing healthcare coverage, with dim prospects of finding affordable alternatives at this moment in time, could conceivably alter that equation. If there is one thing the massive expansion of the welfare state has proven, it is the reality that a record-breaking number of Americans are willing to be subsidized by their fellow Americans. Furthermore, demonizing private insurance companies that many Americans already hold in contempt, to the point where they would be driven into bankruptcy, is certainly not unimaginable. The president did his part yesterday blaming “bad apple” insurance companies for canceling plans.

Unfortunately for Americans, the demonization may amount to little more than piling on: there is a good possibility the quality of current enrollment is already producing a death spiral in the industry.

The Obama administration has promised to reveal the number of enrollees in the new system the middle of next month. It could be one of the more historic announcements in recent history, as Americans will likely discover just how much of Barack Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” has been realized. In the meantime, Sebelius and company will ostensibly be trying to “fix” the current system. The fix as they say, may already be in.


President Obama was never dishonest with the American people?

 Big Day of Big Lies

Those Americans who watched Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s testimony yesterday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee might be forgiven for thinking they were in an alternate universe. Despite her assertion that Americans should “hold me accountable” for the ongoing debacle, Sebelius later claimed she was never warned by anyone that the scheduled roll out of the Healthcare.gov website would be the disaster it turned out to be.



Furthermore, she stood by the assertion that the president has been “keeping his promise” with regard to the idea that Americans who liked their insurance policies could keep them. Fittingly, during the entire three and a half hours the Secretary testified, the Healthcare.gov website was down.

Sebelius’s contention that she was not warned of the problems with the website is a lie. CNN reveals they obtained a confidential report showing that while website creator CGI executives were publicly testifying about achieving milestones, they warned the administration a month before the launch that there were “a number of open risks and issues” associated with the website.

Undoubtedly, Americans are far more interested in the far bigger lie perpetrated by this administration, highlighted by the exchange between Sebelius and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “Before, during and after the law was passed the president kept saying if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, so is he keeping his promise?” asked Blackburn. “Yes, he is,” Sebelius replied. When Blackburn noted the reality that 300,000 people in Florida and 28,000 in Tennessee had their policies terminated, Sebelius contended that “they can get health insurance.”



The president didn’t promise people they could get health insurance. “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” Obama said in remarks made to the American Medical Association in 2009.

In 2010, after the law’s enactment, Obama made the same promise. “And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future.” he said.

Nothing changed in 2012. “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance,” reiterated Obama.

Whitehouse: “If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.”
On Tuesday, it was Press Secretary Jay Carney’s turn when he claimed the president “was clear about a basic fact. If you had insurance that you liked on the individual market, and you wanted to keep that insurance…you could,” he contended. The Whitehouse.gov website made the same assertion as recently as yesterday. “If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.”

As NBC News reports, the Obama administration knew as early as 2010 that assertion was a lie. Despite promising that some insurance policies in non-compliance with the current law would be “grandfathered” into the bill, the Department of Health and Human Services tightened the provisions for that grandfathering three months after the bill’s passage. If any part of a policy was significantly changed, such as a deductible or copay, it no longer qualified for grandfather status.

According to the Washington Post, “significant” meant as little as a $5.00 change in one’s copay, “plus the medical cost of inflation” (which would have been $5.20 based on last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent), or any increase in the coinsurance rate above what it was when the law went into effect on March 23, 2010. Moreover, in the bill itself, there was a statement noting that the normal turnover in the insurance market would cause “40 to 67 percent” of customers to lose their policies.

Despite this reality, Sebelius essentially testified the American public was not only aware of these technical changes, but that they represented a “wide corridor” allowing Americans to keep their existing policies. Thus, contended Sebelius, the president was being truthful.

The Post inadvertently reveals the utter absurdity of that contention, noting that those technical changes Sebelius cites are contained in Vol. 75 of the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, three months after the bill was passed, and the regulations themselves are listed on pages 34,560 through 34,562.

At a later point in her testimony, Sebelius contradicted herself, conceding that Americans remain largely uninformed about the healthcare bill, heartily agreeing with Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that a “real marketing campaign” was necessary to make sure Americans, especially the young who must sign up to keep the system viable, get better informed about the healthcare website.

Doyle was at least affable. Most of his Democratic colleagues were far more interested in praising and protecting Sebelius, as well as castigating Republicans, than getting answers about the problems plaguing the roll out of the program. Republicans were alternately accused of “sabotaging the bill,” “rooting for failure,” and being on “the wrong side of history.” Democrats further extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, and the great benefits it was providing to millions of Americans, even as Sebelius steadfastly refused to release any figures regarding the number of people who have actually signed up for insurance. When asked if the administration would lift a gag order and allow insurance companies to provide those numbers to the public, Sebelius said no.

One of the more pointed exchanges occurred between Sebelius and Rep. Mike Rodgers (R-MI). Addressing security issues with the website, Rodgers got Sebelius to admit that she did not know whether or not each code fix being added to the website was tested for security. Sebelius insisted that security is “an ongoing operation,” yet when Rodgers asked if the system had been tested “end to end,” Sebelius didn’t know the answer.

Rodgers did. He had documentation stating that the website would be rolled out despite the fact that security was only partially completed and that “this constitutes a risk that must be accepted before the marketplace day one operations.” Rodgers was incensed. “You accepted a risk on behalf of every user of this computer that put their personal financial information at risk, because you did not have even the most basic end-to-end test on the security of this system,” he said. When Rodgers asked if Sebelius would commit to shutting down the system until an end-to-end test of security was conducted she declined, and insisted that ongoing testing is underway. In other words, no end-to-end test has been conducted, and Americans’ confidential information remains at risk—all of which is apparently fine with Sebelius.

Perhaps it is fine because Sebelius has her own healthcare plan, a point emphasized by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO). He told Sebelius that he had rejected the Cadillac coverage offered Congress, and enrolled in a plan in the individual market, only to discover that plan was being discontinued due to ObamaCare. He asked the Secretary why she hadn’t subjected herself to a similar experience, drawing the only applause during the entire hearing. Sebelius claimed she wasn’t eligible, because she was covered by her employer.

The Washington Post discovered that Sebelius was wrong. She could get coverage, but it wouldn’t be as good as the deal as she gets now. After further challenges by other Republicans, Sebelius contended she would “gladly join the exchange” if she didn’t already have her federal plan.

In other words, she can, but she won’t.

With help from Democrats, the Secretary repeatedly extolled the virtues of ObamaCare, noting that even those who are losing their current insurance will be getting a better, more comprehensive product instead. That has been the fallback answer for this administration, even as it has been revealed that more than two million Americans are losing their current healthcare plans, a total more than triple the number signing up for ObamaCare. “What we’re seeing now is reality coming into play,” said industry expert Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many Americans are unaware that this is occurring because ObamaCare mandates 10 minimum standards, whether Americans need a particular kind of coverage or not.

Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC) drove that point home at the hearing, noting that some single men have to have maternity coverage included in their policy. Sebelius stated that this was necessary because “an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not.” Thus, those buying insurance must pay for coverage they will never use, so other people can have coverage. In other words, in addition to taxpayer subsidies included in ObamaCare, those buying insurance are also subsidizing other insurance purchasers.

During the course of the hearing, Sebelius promised the website would be completely operational by November 30, but admitted there are no fallback options for those who have lost their insurance, even if they are unable to sign up for a new policy before their current one runs out.

As far as Sebelius taking responsibility for the current failure of the website, one should remember a similar statement was made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with regard to Benghazi. Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility amounted to exactly nothing. Since Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced late yesterday afternoon that the “President has complete confidence in Secretary Sebelius,” she is likely to “suffer” the same fate.

Meanwhile, as is always the case with this administration and their media sycophants, the real action on healthcare is occurring largely under the radar. While Americans are having difficulty keeping old policies or buying new ones, Medicaid enrollment—as in enrollment in a single payer government run healthcare program—is exploding. The numbers are stark. In Washington, 87 percent of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled in the healthcare system signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, it was 82 percent of 26,000 new enrollments, and New York, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent of that state’s 37,000 new enrollments. “Medicaid experts say they’re not sure why they’re seeing the lopsided enrollment numbers, but point out it’s easier to enroll in Medicaid than private insurance,” reports CBS, apparently oblivious to obvious correlation.

What some Americans are not oblivious to is the threat this represents. “Either the private insurance enrollments come up somewhere around the expected amount or there’s going to be a problem…You need a volume and you need a mix of people that are healthy as well as high users in private insurance, in order to have it be sustainable,” said Gail Wilensky, a former Medicaid director.

What Americans need to ask themselves is this: is the chaos surrounding the implementation of the healthcare bill, coupled with the explosion of Medicaid enrollments enabled by the same bill, happening by accident or design? “My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President,” said Barack Obama in 2007, at an SEIU union Healthcare Forum. Obama envisioned a 10 to 15 year rollout, and some critics contend the current ineptitude is happening too fast for Americans to swallow a wholesale transition to single-payer government run healthcare.

Yet millions of people losing healthcare coverage, with dim prospects of finding affordable alternatives at this moment in time, could conceivably alter that equation. If there is one thing the massive expansion of the welfare state has proven, it is the reality that a record-breaking number of Americans are willing to be subsidized by their fellow Americans. Furthermore, demonizing private insurance companies that many Americans already hold in contempt, to the point where they would be driven into bankruptcy, is certainly not unimaginable. The president did his part yesterday blaming “bad apple” insurance companies for canceling plans.

Unfortunately for Americans, the demonization may amount to little more than piling on: there is a good possibility the quality of current enrollment is already producing a death spiral in the industry.

The Obama administration has promised to reveal the number of enrollees in the new system the middle of next month. It could be one of the more historic announcements in recent history, as Americans will likely discover just how much of Barack Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” has been realized. In the meantime, Sebelius and company will ostensibly be trying to “fix” the current system. The fix as they say, may already be in.




The American Dream, Just an Illusion

Dreams are fast turning into illusions, a frightening reality of joblessness, financial and health insecurity, welfare dependency, drug culture, immigration nightmare, socialist government control


The American Dream, Just an Illusion




As a teenager, I used to day dream about escaping the oppressive communist society where we lived. I did not have a passport and a snowball chance in hell of getting one, I did not have any money, and our travel was restricted to a 20- mile radius, as far as our feet could carry us, as far as the rickety government-run buses would transport us, and as far as our pocketbooks allowed. We were so poor though, the wind whistled through our pockets most of the time.



I hid in Grandpa’s tall corn fields or in the woods by my favorite creek to do my deep thinking and planning. I could not afford to day dream in school. I was afraid the security agents, teachers, and the community organizers in the neighborhood that kept us in check around the clock would be able to read my thoughts,  or I would blurt something out that would give my thoughts away and get me and my family in trouble. Under communism, parents were responsible and guilty for their children’s deeds and anti-communist thoughts, statements, or unapproved behavior. Many careless comments by children with loose tongues sent their parents to Jilava or Siberia.

My dream to come to the United States, the land of freedom, seemed so impossible at the time. I could not swim, therefore I could not attempt to take the plunge across the Danube like some of my compatriots did; they were shot or drowned trying to flee. The currents were pretty strong and swift. I knew I would be shot at the border – many Romanians tried that as well and were executed on the spot. Those who succeeded ran the chance of being discovered and returned to the motherland, followed by torture and worse.

I made it,  even though I looked over my shoulder in fear and trepidation up to the moment the airplane took off. I just knew an agent would open the door and yank me off the plane, sending me back to the hell hole of communism. I could see and smell freedom once the plane took off. I could breathe and be free to speak my mind! I thank God for allowing me to enjoy relative freedom for 35 years. Will it be a long time before I complete the full circle, living again under communism, this time in “the land of the free and the home of the brave?”



People from around the world still dream to come to the United States. For most, it remains just a pipe dream. But even those who hate Americans wish they could be on American soil, somehow magically transported across the oceans, to have the opportunity to succeed and attain the American dream. And then there are those who come here with the dream and intent to change America into a caliphate.

The lucky Latin Americans can trek to our southern border and cross it freely now – few agents are allowed to apprehend them anymore and liberals make sure that they are never deported to their own countries. Crossing the border illegally into the U.S. is a lucrative business for Latinos, their progressive lobby in Washington, and the small and large businesses that wish to hire cheap labor. The proximity to our borders gives illegals carte blanche to break the law, take advantage of our lawless government, and become permanent wards of the American taxpayers. We should at least get a picture of the illegal aliens whose financial welfare and wellbeing we are sponsoring with our taxes. Their illegal children have become the “Dreamers” who demand everything American children get; it is their “right” and “entitlement.”

American teenagers here still dream to go to college, to have a career, to have a family, a solid job, and to grow old in freedom and prosperity. Unfortunately, their dreams are fast turning into illusions, a frightening reality of joblessness, financial and health insecurity, welfare dependency, drug culture, immigration nightmare, socialist government control, and the diminishing chance of ever owning a home while holding a worthless college degree without the prospect of employment.

I fulfilled my dream of becoming an American citizen by choice. I cherished my freedom and never took for granted the chance at a better life, the education and prosperity it offered me if I was willing to work hard.  Americans should thank God every day for being born in this exceptional country.

Overseas dreamers have been waiting patiently for years the resolution of their cases. Four millions of them are still hoping to come to the United States. They are not so lucky – oceans separate them from the “shining city on the hill,” the land of opportunity that lately looks more and more like the land of OZ.

Dreams are fast turning into illusions, a frightening reality of joblessness, financial and health insecurity, welfare dependency, drug culture, immigration nightmare, socialist government control


The American Dream, Just an Illusion




As a teenager, I used to day dream about escaping the oppressive communist society where we lived. I did not have a passport and a snowball chance in hell of getting one, I did not have any money, and our travel was restricted to a 20- mile radius, as far as our feet could carry us, as far as the rickety government-run buses would transport us, and as far as our pocketbooks allowed. We were so poor though, the wind whistled through our pockets most of the time.



I hid in Grandpa’s tall corn fields or in the woods by my favorite creek to do my deep thinking and planning. I could not afford to day dream in school. I was afraid the security agents, teachers, and the community organizers in the neighborhood that kept us in check around the clock would be able to read my thoughts,  or I would blurt something out that would give my thoughts away and get me and my family in trouble. Under communism, parents were responsible and guilty for their children’s deeds and anti-communist thoughts, statements, or unapproved behavior. Many careless comments by children with loose tongues sent their parents to Jilava or Siberia.

My dream to come to the United States, the land of freedom, seemed so impossible at the time. I could not swim, therefore I could not attempt to take the plunge across the Danube like some of my compatriots did; they were shot or drowned trying to flee. The currents were pretty strong and swift. I knew I would be shot at the border – many Romanians tried that as well and were executed on the spot. Those who succeeded ran the chance of being discovered and returned to the motherland, followed by torture and worse.

I made it,  even though I looked over my shoulder in fear and trepidation up to the moment the airplane took off. I just knew an agent would open the door and yank me off the plane, sending me back to the hell hole of communism. I could see and smell freedom once the plane took off. I could breathe and be free to speak my mind! I thank God for allowing me to enjoy relative freedom for 35 years. Will it be a long time before I complete the full circle, living again under communism, this time in “the land of the free and the home of the brave?”



People from around the world still dream to come to the United States. For most, it remains just a pipe dream. But even those who hate Americans wish they could be on American soil, somehow magically transported across the oceans, to have the opportunity to succeed and attain the American dream. And then there are those who come here with the dream and intent to change America into a caliphate.

The lucky Latin Americans can trek to our southern border and cross it freely now – few agents are allowed to apprehend them anymore and liberals make sure that they are never deported to their own countries. Crossing the border illegally into the U.S. is a lucrative business for Latinos, their progressive lobby in Washington, and the small and large businesses that wish to hire cheap labor. The proximity to our borders gives illegals carte blanche to break the law, take advantage of our lawless government, and become permanent wards of the American taxpayers. We should at least get a picture of the illegal aliens whose financial welfare and wellbeing we are sponsoring with our taxes. Their illegal children have become the “Dreamers” who demand everything American children get; it is their “right” and “entitlement.”

American teenagers here still dream to go to college, to have a career, to have a family, a solid job, and to grow old in freedom and prosperity. Unfortunately, their dreams are fast turning into illusions, a frightening reality of joblessness, financial and health insecurity, welfare dependency, drug culture, immigration nightmare, socialist government control, and the diminishing chance of ever owning a home while holding a worthless college degree without the prospect of employment.

I fulfilled my dream of becoming an American citizen by choice. I cherished my freedom and never took for granted the chance at a better life, the education and prosperity it offered me if I was willing to work hard.  Americans should thank God every day for being born in this exceptional country.

Overseas dreamers have been waiting patiently for years the resolution of their cases. Four millions of them are still hoping to come to the United States. They are not so lucky – oceans separate them from the “shining city on the hill,” the land of opportunity that lately looks more and more like the land of OZ.



Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Rationed Food and Purposeful Starvation

Inhumanity of a desperate human in the quest for survival is glaring and devastating evidence why communists should never be allowed to take power again

Rationed Food and Purposeful Starvation



I remember our daily food always coming from a long, long line at the end of which was a loaf of bread, a liter of milk, a stick of butter, a bottle of murky cooking oil, or a kilo of bones with traces of meat and fat on them.



The interminable lines looked like this bread line pictured above. We never knew what was sold at the end of a line we happened to come upon, but we knew we needed whatever people lined up to buy, so we joined the line.

If we wanted to eat, we learned at a very young age that we had to stand in long lines every day, often in bitter cold at 4 a.m. in hopes that the store would not run out of bread or milk by the time we made it to the front counter.

People carried cash and a shopping bag just in case they discovered hard-to-find items: toilet paper, aspirin, cotton balls, soap, potatoes, oranges, apples, flour, sugar, or cooking oil. From time to time, the shortage was so bad, we were issued rationing coupons. Once you ran out of rationing coupons for the month, you could not buy anything unless you were lucky enough to have extra cash to shop from the burgeoning black market of hoarders with communist party connections.



The ruling elite, of course, was fat and happy, shopping at their own grocery stores, usually located underground at the local Communist Party headquarters.

It wasn’t that the country did not produce enough food in spite of its disastrous centralized communist party planning. The mad dictator Ceausescu was determined to industrialize the country at the expense of people’s food – he exported so much to the West in exchange for technology and hard currency that the Romanians had to make do with the leftover food not fit for export.

The agricultural five year plan was developed by communist bureaucrats who were community organizers with very little experience at producing anything and very little formal education. They were schooled in the fine art of radical agitation.

Around Christmas time and Easter, there would be more food sent to stores, the lines were shorter for a few days and the stores better stocked. But that did not last very long. People would wipe out the supply in no time and the store shelves would be empty again, with one very expensive salami hanging behind the counter or in the window, buzzed by flies.

But that was nothing compared to the Soviet plan to starve the Romanian population of Bessarabia in 1946-1947 in order to achieve collectivization. According to the 1897 census, almost 48% of the population was Moldovan and thus spoke Romanian. Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina were Romanian-held prior to the military occupation by the Soviet Red Army during June 28-July 4, 1940. To avoid a military conflict, Romania withdrew from the area following a Soviet ultimatum delivered on June 26. The Romanian province was recaptured by Ion Antonescu from 1941-1944 and then reoccupied by the Soviets in 1944. The regions were subsequently incorporated into the USSR.

I recently came across an eye-witness, 25-minute documentary by Bogdan Parlea, “Marturii Despre Suferintele Romanilor din Basarabia” (“Witness to the Suffering of the Romanians in Bessarabia”), produced by the Fundatia Sfintii Inchisorilor and Fundatia Parintele Arsenie Boca. Hundreds of thousands of Moldovans died at the hands of their Soviet Socialist tormentors who confiscated their crops by force and shipped the food to the USSR. Wheat and corn was left to rot and mold in uncovered wagons at train stations; it was done to leave farmers as poor and desperate as possible in order to better manipulate and control them.

According to Alexandru Moraru, the gazette “Moldova Socialista” (“Socialist Moldova”) reported on January 28, 1947, that the food industry in the region had exceeded butter production by 33.2 percent, meat production by 32.5 percent, and canned food by 101.9 percent. This was the food confiscated from the starving Moldovans who were too weak to bury their own dead.

It was a Soviet state secret - nobody was allowed to write or speak about the horrors that took place in Chisinau, Orhei, Balti, Cahul, and other villages, how collectivization agents took the last drop of food and grain from the farmer’s barns, and how the children of Moldova were kidnapped, brought into homes, murdered, cooked, and eaten.

Survivors were interviewed as eye witnesses to the communist power which forced peasants to pay confiscatory taxes as well as huge quantities of their crops to the Soviet state, leaving them with little to eat. The small crop yields resulting from a very dry growing season coupled with the forced confiscation in the name of collectivization caused mass famine. Ten percent of the 1.5 million population died of starvation and a large percentage that survived were severely malnourished, looking like Holocaust victims.

Anatolie Iov Spinei described how the crop yield in 1946-1947 was only 500-600 kg per hectare due to the draught that year and the forced quota to the Soviet state was also 500-600 kg.

Eugenia Ciuntu described how her family dug a large barrel in the ground and hid grain inside but the Soviet community organizers came with sticks and tapped the ground, finding the barrel in the soft dirt. They were tapping everywhere, even hay stacks, in an attempt to find every last drop of grain.

Petre Buburuz, Orthodox Priest, explained that the end game was to starve and kill as many peasants as possible, take their land, and establish the Soviet collectives, the “colhoz.” He described how people kidnapped other people and sold them for meat.

Margareta Spanu Cemartan talked about the “communist ideology to scare people, to bring them to desperation,” to make them acquiesce to become part of the collectivization when faced with the prospect of dying. Farmers will turn in their pre-determined quota of grain to the waiting trains, receive a receipt, and then the communist agents would come back for a second round of quotas, forcing them to sweep the last kernels of wheat and corn from their barns and give up their last chicken, cow, or pig. They were left with 8 children and nothing to feed them.

What did they eat? How did they survive? Parents fed their children first and chose to die the swelling and painful death of starvation. Nadejda Botea told how some men ground tree bark to feed their families. Valentina Sturza said that those found hiding food, were sent to Siberia 10-15 years in labor camps. Some survived by boiling non-poisonous weeds.

Ion Moraru said that every family had to turn in a certain quantity of everything that was produced on a farm, eggs, meat, grain, milk, cheese, wool, but not all peasants had all of these, so they had to pay extra taxes to make up for the shortage of food quota. Many were taken to the police precinct and beaten.

Those in charge of the collective farms were afraid to tell Stalin and his henchmen that the crop had been poor because of the draught. Consequently, the quotas were not adjusted to reflect the low crop yield.

People were so desperate to eat, they sold everything of value, icons, gold items, carpets, windows, doors, silverware, candlesticks, rosaries, including the clothes off their backs. According to Anatolie Iov Spinei, “Bread had become the currency.  A carpet was worth a loaf of bread.”

Teodosia Cosmin talked about eating weeds. Her mom sold every piece of clothing in her daughters’ dowry trunks in order to survive.

Anastasia Ursachi talked about farmers keeping cows and goats in the house with them otherwise they were stolen and eaten. “Women carried babies to term, killed them, and fed them to the other children,” she said.

They ate all dogs and cats. Nadejda Botea described how a woman’s husband passed away; she put the body in the attic and fed him daily to her children. The weak were robbed of their food and possessions, so deep was the desperation.

Those who did not engage in cannibalism were so weak, they were unable to bury their dead. They dragged them into mass graves and abandoned them. Some died when the new crop came in and families ate too much.

After watching this shocking eyewitness documentary with film footage of that time period, I will never again look at food in the same way. The inhumanity of a desperate human being in the quest for survival at all costs is glaring and devastating evidence why communists should never be allowed to take power again.

Inhumanity of a desperate human in the quest for survival is glaring and devastating evidence why communists should never be allowed to take power again

Rationed Food and Purposeful Starvation



I remember our daily food always coming from a long, long line at the end of which was a loaf of bread, a liter of milk, a stick of butter, a bottle of murky cooking oil, or a kilo of bones with traces of meat and fat on them.



The interminable lines looked like this bread line pictured above. We never knew what was sold at the end of a line we happened to come upon, but we knew we needed whatever people lined up to buy, so we joined the line.

If we wanted to eat, we learned at a very young age that we had to stand in long lines every day, often in bitter cold at 4 a.m. in hopes that the store would not run out of bread or milk by the time we made it to the front counter.

People carried cash and a shopping bag just in case they discovered hard-to-find items: toilet paper, aspirin, cotton balls, soap, potatoes, oranges, apples, flour, sugar, or cooking oil. From time to time, the shortage was so bad, we were issued rationing coupons. Once you ran out of rationing coupons for the month, you could not buy anything unless you were lucky enough to have extra cash to shop from the burgeoning black market of hoarders with communist party connections.



The ruling elite, of course, was fat and happy, shopping at their own grocery stores, usually located underground at the local Communist Party headquarters.

It wasn’t that the country did not produce enough food in spite of its disastrous centralized communist party planning. The mad dictator Ceausescu was determined to industrialize the country at the expense of people’s food – he exported so much to the West in exchange for technology and hard currency that the Romanians had to make do with the leftover food not fit for export.

The agricultural five year plan was developed by communist bureaucrats who were community organizers with very little experience at producing anything and very little formal education. They were schooled in the fine art of radical agitation.

Around Christmas time and Easter, there would be more food sent to stores, the lines were shorter for a few days and the stores better stocked. But that did not last very long. People would wipe out the supply in no time and the store shelves would be empty again, with one very expensive salami hanging behind the counter or in the window, buzzed by flies.

But that was nothing compared to the Soviet plan to starve the Romanian population of Bessarabia in 1946-1947 in order to achieve collectivization. According to the 1897 census, almost 48% of the population was Moldovan and thus spoke Romanian. Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina were Romanian-held prior to the military occupation by the Soviet Red Army during June 28-July 4, 1940. To avoid a military conflict, Romania withdrew from the area following a Soviet ultimatum delivered on June 26. The Romanian province was recaptured by Ion Antonescu from 1941-1944 and then reoccupied by the Soviets in 1944. The regions were subsequently incorporated into the USSR.

I recently came across an eye-witness, 25-minute documentary by Bogdan Parlea, “Marturii Despre Suferintele Romanilor din Basarabia” (“Witness to the Suffering of the Romanians in Bessarabia”), produced by the Fundatia Sfintii Inchisorilor and Fundatia Parintele Arsenie Boca. Hundreds of thousands of Moldovans died at the hands of their Soviet Socialist tormentors who confiscated their crops by force and shipped the food to the USSR. Wheat and corn was left to rot and mold in uncovered wagons at train stations; it was done to leave farmers as poor and desperate as possible in order to better manipulate and control them.

According to Alexandru Moraru, the gazette “Moldova Socialista” (“Socialist Moldova”) reported on January 28, 1947, that the food industry in the region had exceeded butter production by 33.2 percent, meat production by 32.5 percent, and canned food by 101.9 percent. This was the food confiscated from the starving Moldovans who were too weak to bury their own dead.

It was a Soviet state secret - nobody was allowed to write or speak about the horrors that took place in Chisinau, Orhei, Balti, Cahul, and other villages, how collectivization agents took the last drop of food and grain from the farmer’s barns, and how the children of Moldova were kidnapped, brought into homes, murdered, cooked, and eaten.

Survivors were interviewed as eye witnesses to the communist power which forced peasants to pay confiscatory taxes as well as huge quantities of their crops to the Soviet state, leaving them with little to eat. The small crop yields resulting from a very dry growing season coupled with the forced confiscation in the name of collectivization caused mass famine. Ten percent of the 1.5 million population died of starvation and a large percentage that survived were severely malnourished, looking like Holocaust victims.

Anatolie Iov Spinei described how the crop yield in 1946-1947 was only 500-600 kg per hectare due to the draught that year and the forced quota to the Soviet state was also 500-600 kg.

Eugenia Ciuntu described how her family dug a large barrel in the ground and hid grain inside but the Soviet community organizers came with sticks and tapped the ground, finding the barrel in the soft dirt. They were tapping everywhere, even hay stacks, in an attempt to find every last drop of grain.

Petre Buburuz, Orthodox Priest, explained that the end game was to starve and kill as many peasants as possible, take their land, and establish the Soviet collectives, the “colhoz.” He described how people kidnapped other people and sold them for meat.

Margareta Spanu Cemartan talked about the “communist ideology to scare people, to bring them to desperation,” to make them acquiesce to become part of the collectivization when faced with the prospect of dying. Farmers will turn in their pre-determined quota of grain to the waiting trains, receive a receipt, and then the communist agents would come back for a second round of quotas, forcing them to sweep the last kernels of wheat and corn from their barns and give up their last chicken, cow, or pig. They were left with 8 children and nothing to feed them.

What did they eat? How did they survive? Parents fed their children first and chose to die the swelling and painful death of starvation. Nadejda Botea told how some men ground tree bark to feed their families. Valentina Sturza said that those found hiding food, were sent to Siberia 10-15 years in labor camps. Some survived by boiling non-poisonous weeds.

Ion Moraru said that every family had to turn in a certain quantity of everything that was produced on a farm, eggs, meat, grain, milk, cheese, wool, but not all peasants had all of these, so they had to pay extra taxes to make up for the shortage of food quota. Many were taken to the police precinct and beaten.

Those in charge of the collective farms were afraid to tell Stalin and his henchmen that the crop had been poor because of the draught. Consequently, the quotas were not adjusted to reflect the low crop yield.

People were so desperate to eat, they sold everything of value, icons, gold items, carpets, windows, doors, silverware, candlesticks, rosaries, including the clothes off their backs. According to Anatolie Iov Spinei, “Bread had become the currency.  A carpet was worth a loaf of bread.”

Teodosia Cosmin talked about eating weeds. Her mom sold every piece of clothing in her daughters’ dowry trunks in order to survive.

Anastasia Ursachi talked about farmers keeping cows and goats in the house with them otherwise they were stolen and eaten. “Women carried babies to term, killed them, and fed them to the other children,” she said.

They ate all dogs and cats. Nadejda Botea described how a woman’s husband passed away; she put the body in the attic and fed him daily to her children. The weak were robbed of their food and possessions, so deep was the desperation.

Those who did not engage in cannibalism were so weak, they were unable to bury their dead. They dragged them into mass graves and abandoned them. Some died when the new crop came in and families ate too much.

After watching this shocking eyewitness documentary with film footage of that time period, I will never again look at food in the same way. The inhumanity of a desperate human being in the quest for survival at all costs is glaring and devastating evidence why communists should never be allowed to take power again.