He Said; She Said... People Say the Damnest Things

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

News / Government

______________________________

Apparently someone is out to ruin Duck Dynasty. Phil Robertson's unconventional views were not enough to skew the conversation away from current events and government corruption so someone had to dig up an interview from 2009.

Would this be categorized as: Before They were Stars?

If you want to get mad about something said, perhaps you should get angry at the following statements:

David Rockefeller Admits "conspiring" in his 2002 Book entitled Memoirs:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

In 1973, David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission (TC), about which Sen. Barry Goldwater in WITH NO APOLOGIES (1979) wrote: "In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power---political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical." News With Views

The year after the Trilateral Commission was formed, Rhodes scholar Richard Gardner in the April 1974 edition of FOREIGN AFFAIRS (published by the Council on Foreign Relations, with David Rockefeller as chairman, 1970-1985) described how "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault," and he went on to say how GATT would be part of that effort! News With Views

Leaders and role models (so-called anyway) carry on the mantra against humanity:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

If you think that is innocuous, then read the rest of the explanation:

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero."

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. Natural News

Or how about these lies quoted from the UNFPA report by The Truth Wins?

*”The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports.”

*”Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth.”

*”Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

*”No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

*”Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

Next are they going to blame cows for flatulence? Oh, yeah they already did and then had to retract that false accusation made to control red meat consumption as stipulated by Maurice Strong: ( Liberty News Online)

In 1992, Strong told a UN conference...:“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

View the entire article here: http://americanpolicy.org/?p=7649.

Or, Maurice Strong's other comments quoted on Good Quotes:

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

After all, sustainability means running the global environment - Earth Inc. - like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital.

One of the things that I've always thought I would like to do is to develop an environmental index. Then people can measure their own environmental performance on an index as they do in other ways.

Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.

What was that Mr. President?

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy,” Obama said. The Blaze

You wonder why we have problems in the world? Perhaps we should be exercising our right to call people to the Hague for crimes against humanity. Least of all, we should be arresting people for treason in every country these people originate from.

Unless of course, you want to get a license to see your grandchild because their little lungs will expel CO2 and ruin the Earth. Then I wonder how these nutters are going to stop volcanoes from erupting? Are they going to carbon tax them too?

Of all the idiotic elitist statements found readily on the internet, the biggest crazy pants idea has to be the Georgia Guidestones:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

What are the Georgia Guidestones? is the article on the Examiner. Erected in 1979, no one really knows who financed the project. If you read the inscription, in eight languages no less, the list sounds eerily familiar: global governance, sustainability, regionalism hidden in ideology... doesn't it?

It is not the fact that people and government / organizational reports are stating these fabrications. It is the fact that programs are being implemented to change society, destabilize global and national economies, cull and control the human population, weaponize weather, destroy national sovereignty, end individual property ownership, privatize and socialize every program that benefits the average person for dismantlement in the name of austerity, in addition to high taxes and corporate centralized power for monopolization and profiteering by an elite oligarchy.

It's time to grow up, discuss adult issues, and take the madmen out of power. Can we say: enough already?

Maybe that is what people should be mad at instead of a 67 year old duck hunter.


Sources: CNN 

And that's the Word, First Amendment Protected Speech

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

News / Government

_______________________________

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me!"

As children many of us were given this piece of advice as a shield against bullies and enemies. This advice safeguarded our self identity and esteem. Children may expose the truth, albeit sometimes painful truths, but we always managed to cope because we had these mechanisms of advice.

In all reality, it's not what you say that affects people; it's what you do. If someone says something you do not like then you have an opportunity to oppose them right then and there, or ignore them. It is your choice in what action you take.

See there, saying versus doing?

The great thing about the First Amendment is that it protects our daily speech: conformist rhetoric to controversial religious views to argumentative demagogue. You are covered! 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Granted the Supreme Court does not believe yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded and dark movie theater as a First Amendment protection, but we can agree to disagree to make no law "abridging the freedom of speech."

That is unless you are a corporation.

Today if you speak your truth, you are admonished. You can't say this. You can't say that. Why not? Sticks and stones, remember? Words are not going to hurt you, but adults are not using this childhood self-defense mechanism. Instead adults are going for the juggler in response to mere words.

What is even more ridiculous is that we as a nation of adults are allowing corporations to deem what is speakable and what is not. "Hate speech" is another form of censorship. As an adult you can hate all you want as long as your actions do not take away the rights of another person.

Saying words does not keep someone else from expressing themselves, carrying out their lives, or going to work.

Actions do.

So a corporation says: you cannot work unless you stop your free speech! That should be sending a red flag to everyone in the United States. The First Amendment is not there to protect social graces but the social heredox.

In America if you have a difference of opinion or religion or whatever, you can have your freedoms abridged without due process of law. Someone can get suspended or fired from their job.

The next level of this outrage against opinion is happening in the courts. Now if you have a business, not giving service to someone you do not agree with, then you can get your business sued. Can anyone walk in off the streets without a shirt or shoes get service refused and sue the establishment? What happened to an owner's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason? That's gone.

It is beyond ridiculous that the United States has been reduced to a bunch of whiny, insolent, bratty children! People have the right to their opinion. That is what separates us from North Korea and China. So suck it up.

If you do not like someone's opinion, then do not talk to them, buy from them, or serve them. It is really a simple approach to protect people's rights for and against any topic. The adult way to handle the problem is just to agree to disagree.

If no one got harmed, then words are just words. Protected words. Freewill to express those words.

Words.

Words offend. Words defend. Words define.

Words should never be regulated by corporations at any time in any way.

And, that's the word.

Source: Cornell Law