Health Care and Debates

Bob Unruh from WND.com wrote about how the National Guard is recruiting for "internment cops." An Ad campaign is seeking workers at a 'civilian resettlement facility.' The campaign is featured on an U.S. Army website. They seek those who are interesting in being an "Internment/Resettlement" specialist. This is raising alarms nationwide. Some believe that these can lead into domestic detention camps or a roundup of dissidents plus a crackdown on "threatening" conservatives. The ads are found at the GoArmy.com website. The ad wants these specialists to work in jails to work as a security guard, help bring welfare plus health to U.S. military prisoners, etc. This campaign comes weeks after the DHS report that compared right wing extremists to third party supporters, abortion opposers, and those who want legal immigration. That is why Richard Thomspon (who is the President of the Thomas More Law Center) is having a lawsuit over this DHS report. DHS head Janet Napolitano apologized only for veterans being demonized as terrorists not anyone else. The extremist report coincided with another report from California that the Department of Defense was describding protesters as "low level terrorists." The new ad says wants that they candidates to provide external security to detention/internment facilities and provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program. Officials at the state and federal National Guard levels told WND they were unaware of the program, although one officer speculated it could be intended for soldiers trained in the U.S. and dispatched overseas to "detention facilities." From the national level, WND was told, officials were unaware of any such "internment facilities" at which there could be jobs to be available. One critic of this plan says that it's about putting people in camps (and these search and restrain procedures in this plan is a violation of the 14th Amendment). He said that the use of firearms is code of depriving somebody of their life. The ads list as "advanced responsibilities" issues such as supervision and administration, responsibility for the "prisoner/internee" population, "custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp," and work on "custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (CD) resettlement facility." The U.S. government already have plans to lock up dissidents. HR 645 is called the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill in the House would alow FEMA to build 6 National Emergency Centers in America on closed or open military facilities. This will deal with emergencies. KBR recieved a government contract years ago to house illegal immigrations (they can now be used for other problems since slightly less illegal immigrants are going into America). KBR have funds now to build internment camps in America. That is why people are threatened with jail if they refuse to take the swine flu vaccine. Internment facilities sound similar to WW2 concentration camps. The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. It alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. So, it's obvious that martial law is a threat and the DHS report is extreme to say the least.

Glen Creno from The Arizona Republic on August 9, 2009 described about how the Pentagon is holding a sustaining military readiness conference in Arizona. The arm of the American government that's responsible for knocking off threats to the country gets together in Phoenix to talk about subjects like natural resources and sustainability. The Department of Defense holds a get together every 2 years. It's called Sustaining Military Readiness Conference. The Pentagon wants these sessions to try to forge partnerships with people, organizations, and governments that neighbor military installations. Military readiness depends on the ability to train troops, effectively run bases, and the number of troops plus the amount of hardware. The last conference was in Orlando. The latest one is in Phoenix. It started days ago and runs through Friday at the Sheraton Phoenix Downton Hotel. Retired Army Col. Tom Finnegan of Sierra Vista wants more partnership in this deal. He's the co-chairman of 2 state military affairs commissions and a panelist at the conference. He wants readiness, readiness in the ranges, and other things. Arizona has 5 major bases. They include Luke Air Force Base in the Valley and 4 principal National Guard operations according to a study paid for by the state and released in 2008 based on 2005 data. The study found that the military provides thousands of direct jobs and produced $3.2 billion in direct economic output in the state. Arizona's military industry like Defense operations plus the businesses they support, create 96,328 jobs and $9.1 billion in economic output. The Department sees the state where they can make connections stronger around its bases. Dr. Samuel Kleinman is the deputy undersecretary of defense for readiness said in a statement that Arizons provides a great venue for having win-win partnership that can help sustain military readiness. These panel discusses have many topics. He said that the military will have to tell their plans to neighbors. In the 21st century, many military exercises (some of them violating Posse Comitatus) are more common than 10 years ago. They wants us to be prepared for a more militarized society. If martial law comes, the military will have more means to act domestically. We have to be careful about to see what these new military developments tranpire into.

Some people know realize the threats against our civil liberties going on. The Young Turks are a group of liberal activists made up of Turkish ethnic dissent. They probably don't know the history behind the real Young Turks. They were a grop of pro-British militarists in WWI Turkey. They legitimately wanted nationalism, which is fine. Yet, they used sinister tactics in trying to free Turkey from the Ottoman Empire. They set up a military dictatorship there and exists slightly today. They Young Turks had links with Masons and other secret orders. They committed genocide against the Armenians (along with Muslim radicals being involved in genocide against the Armenians) and ethnically cleansed the Greeks. The British and the French wanted to open up former Ottoman provinces like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel to create colonialization of that region of the world. The whole area, as David Fromkin shows in his magisterial "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East," has been in turmoil since the Treaty of Versailles. The Ottoman Empire was similiar to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was multinaitonal, imperalist, and it had a love/hate relationship with ethnic plus religious minorities. They murdered dissidents and showed some tolerance in other times of its history. The Ottoman Empire was formed by theft of lands of course.The Sultan wanted no competition to his power. The Ottoman Empire died soon after WWI because of economic and political problems. Winston Churchill wanted choas in the Middle East to expand British imperialism and enrich the special interests that profited from oppressing foreign human beings. Now, the far left Young Turks group is on the Internet spewing their opinions, which they have a right to do. We conversely have a right to disagree with them. They demonize the protesters who disagree with the present health care plan presented by the White House as puppets of the insurance industry. That's a lie since the protesters are from across the political spectrum. They assign anyone that disagees with them as "far right wing" or other stereotypes. They even called Ron Paul a puppet or a racist for voting against Sotomayor (when Sotomayor is probably pro-abortion, has issues with the Second Amendment in the level of the state government, and have issues with her views on private property rights). They lie and call Ron Paul isolationist when he supports trade among nations. He is non-interventionist. I don't agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I realize that he's not an isolotionalist. They are ignorant as well since they view mandatory vaccinations as fine when nothing in the Constitution states that you are forced to place foreign patrogens into your body. That's like saying that the government has the right to forcibly sterilize you, which is extremist. Some vaccines as proven by mainstream researchers are dangerous. The Young Turks are in the left/right paradigm that talk about some legitimate issues, but won't see the bigger picture. It's as simple as that.

Terry Melanson wrote an excellent article about how cypto-eugenics or population control is still a reality in the 21st century. Cypto-eugenics is about promoting eugenics without calling it such. As many realize, Science czar John P. Holdren is a person who was the co-author of the 1973 Ecoscience book. Holdren's population control policies were influenced by the book of 1954's "The Challenge of Man's Future" which was created by eugenicist Harrison Brown. Holdren admitted in 1986 that Harrison Brown's book changed his thinking about the world and what career he would get into. Brown's book called human morons, the feeble minded, etc. in an eugenic way. Brown wanted certain people to not reproduce, he wanted sterilization, and he believed in a broad eugenics program (so so-called healthy people would exist and the "unfit" would not breed in excessive rate). Brown is an evil genius indeed since all human life have equal value. Melanson is right to point out that the population control movement is nothing more than eugenics placed into action. This isn't something new since Margaret Sanger in his “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda,” admitted that her version of birth control (which was population control) is related to the final aims of eugenics. Sanger blatantly wanted birth control to be used in an eugenic way. William N. Grigg wrote and excellent article on the eugenicists and the anti-natalist (or anti-human) scholar named Kingsley Davis. Gregg proved that one of Davis' papers for "Science" magazine in 1967 desired that “the social structure and economy must be changed before a deliberate reduction in the birthrate can be achieved,” while urging “governments to subsidize voluntary abortion and sterilization and restructure their tax systems to discourage both marriage and childbirth.” In other, Davis and his ilk wanted to use slick, piece meal methods in getting a forced decreasing of the human population accomplished. Davis is a member of the American Eugenics Society (in 1956 and 1974). He was a director of the group from 1952 to 1955. Davis is one of the leader of the global elite's eugenic establishment. The Rockefeller/U.N. clique funds this operation before and after this agenda was overtly promoted in society. Davis coined the term Zero Population Growth. He, along with Holdren formed the group of "No-Growth Society" enthusiasts. Davis expressed his anti-population goals in an article called "Zero Population Growth: The Goal and the Means." It's found in the journal of Daedalus: Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (from Vol. 102, No. 4). Davis in his essay says that his fellow eugenicists aren't serious enough on what policy would best have population reduction. He wants any means to have zero population growth. He denies the right of women to give birth to any children they want. Popular culture have been used to promote the overpopulation myth as well. There were movies and science fiction books promoting these things like William Earls’ “Traffic Problem” (1970), Leonard C. Lewin’s Triage (1972), etc. Ehlrich was the co-author of John Holdren of Ecoscience. Max Ehrlich is the screenwrite of the film of Z.P.G. along with its producer. It's common to see movies to promote propaganda about the occult, eugenics, and population control. Paul Ehrlich and others are real threats in promoting the crypto-eugenic goal of total population control over citizens.

Steven Ertelt from LifeNews.com on August 7, 2009 wrote about how Sarah Palin opposed the Obamacare bill over abortion and euthanasia reasons (although Palin didn't use the word euthanasia in her article). The media in CNN and MSNBC especially jumped on these comments and called her wrong for writing these words. Also, Palin would be demonized by the mainstream media anyway. These bills are pending in Congress. Barack Obama denies that euthanasia is in his health care bill. A lot of people in the Internet agree with her statements. Sarah Palin believes that Obama's plan is a nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress. The truth is that Obama is rushing this bill through Congress, because he feels it's a necessary thing to help people. Yet, we should be careful to look at the provisions of any bill, especially a bill with over 1,000 pages in it. Also, this bill isn't a total government control takeover health care plan per se, yet there are legitimate criticism against it. Thomas Sowell said that the plan will this plan will not reduce the cost, but refuse to pay the cost. Sarah Palin believed that the bill deals with rationed care for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled (which could push into euthanasia and assisted suicide according to critics of Obamacare). "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin says. "Such a system is downright evil." "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion," she continued. The truth is that euthanasia isn't in the bill, but there is a plan of end of care discussions between doctors and patients under some circumstances. What is also true is that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who is the brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is an Obama advisor. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel supported the Orwellian view of having of a scale of coverage of people depending on their age. Palin noted a recent speech by pro-life Rep. Michele Bachmann who took to task an Obama advisor that LifeNews.com has profiled who is the chief architect of the Congressional health care plan but has been criticized for backing rationing of medical care for the elderly and disabled. "I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors," Palin said. Some accuse the bill of supporting abortion and using rationing. The final bill isn't here yet, but people have a right to protest and speak their minds. We shouldn't be intimidated by mainstream press, the Congress, or anyone else. The media in CNN will legitimately report on death threats against a Congressman (which is wrong), but they won't report on how a Obamacare worker was assaulted by SEIU thugs plus called the N word readily at all. So, double standards exist in media coverage. This is common sense. Although not every one in CNN are extremists though. Now, it's time to not be afraid and embrace our First Amendment rights.

The Economy is still having serious problems. There are tent cities going up about all across America. They are filled with the homeless and the unemployed from the worst ecnomy since the 1930's. When Americans are living in tents, the Obama government have promoted a $1 billion crash program to build a mega-embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan to rival the one the Bush government buildt in Baghdad, Iraq. Hard times are afflicted tons of Americans still. The extension of unemployment benefits from 6 months to 18 months for 24 high unemployemt state and to 46-72 weeks in other states is beginning to run out. By Christmas, 1.5 million Americans will have exhausted unemployement benefits while unemployment rolls continue to rise. Despite the economic crisis continuing, the House of Representatives just passed a $636 billion "defense" bill. America isn't defending itself. It's attacking nations they deem a "threat." They are encircling Russia, with threatening military bases. They are bombing nations that pose no legitimate threat to American soil. These wars benefit the military industrial complex not the American people. We borrow money from foreign creditors to the armament industry in order fo fund this $636 billion 'defense' bills. President George W. Bush used lies and misrepresentations as justifications to have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama have started the illegal war in Pakistan with no explanation or justification whatosever. Luckily, the armament industry isn't trying to fight Iran, Russia, Sudan (although the genocide there against black people should be opposed in Sudan), and North Korea now with the neo conservative puppets leading the charge. America continues to be overrun by many issues and haven't solved the illegal immigration crisis. This isn't a real defense bill. Foreign nations have spent their trade surpluses and have no more dollars to recycle in the purchase of Treasury bonds to pay for these things. The U.S. banks have used up their bailout money by purchasing Treasury bonds. When the Federal Reserve can't print any more money to keep the government going without pushing up inflation and interest rates, the taxpayers are left to pay for our policies. Even Barack Obama's 2 economic advisors (named Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers promote the idea of a middle class tax increase). People are desperate for work so much that 150 applicants are trying to get a topless waitress jobs in a coffee house in the small town of Vassalboro, Maine. The U.S. hypes up "recovery," like the Bush White House have falsely hyped up "terrorist threat" and "weapons of mass destruction." The recovery is as real as the terrorist threats. There are home foreclosurses and uemployment problems (yet, some news say that some unemployment have slightly lowered). The U.S. dollar have more pressure. At some point import prices, which include offshored goods and services of US corporations, will rise, adding to the inflation fueled by domestic money creation. The Federal Reserve will be unable to hold down interest rates by buying bonds. There is the crisis of American income, which have stopped growing in years. Americans have substituted second jobs and debt accumulation for the missing growth in real wages. With most households maxed out on debt and jobs disappearing, these substitutes for real income growth no longer exist. In other words, high value added jobs, the GDP, and payroll tax revenues have moved offshore. Consumers have no more leverage in order to increase their spending. Can the U.S. pay for its imports if the dollar is no longer used as a reserve currency. The future of the American economy is uncertain.

Laws exist now. CHARLIE SAVAGE from the NY Times on Sunday, at August 9, 2009 reported on Barack Obama's embrace of a Bush tactic. This is riling up Congress. President Barack Obama have issued signing statements claiming that the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office. Criticism is mounting against this policy from both parties. President George W. Bush did signing statements (under his claim of expansive theories about his constitutional powers, which set off a national debate in 2006). Bush used this policy to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act. In the Presidential campaign, Obama called Bush's use of signing statements as an abuse. Barack Obama said that he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says that the signing statements the President has signed so far. He challenged portions of 5 bills, which have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution (and echo reservations routinely expressed by President of both parties). Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements. They wrote that they disagree with the President picking and choosing what Constitutional statues he or she can enforce. They are reacting to Obama signing a bill that expanded assistance to the IMF and the World Bank, while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Obama said that he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations. Congress passed a rebuke to ban officials from using federal money to disobey restrictions (when the Barack Obama administration claimed to carry out the provisions anyway). In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or “otherwise confidential” information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents. Obama said that he won't obey written format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and restriction on putting United Nations command. Barack Obama using signing statements isn't unusual since both major parties are controlled by the same people. Signing statements done by Presidents were rare until the time of Ronald Reagan. Clinton did it and it peaked under George W. Bush with almost 1,200 provisions of bills over 8 years. Obama says that he will act under more restraint with his support of signing statements, but a signing statement is a signing statement. “He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made,” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office.” From NAFTA, abortion, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, etc. Barack Obama is similar in policy to George W. Bush.

By Timothy