TruthSeeker24's anti-N.W.O. corner

Pro-God, Pro-Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, pro-Constitution, Pro-Republic, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Jesuit Order, Pro-9/11 Truth Movement, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

The Hutaree story and more news

I knew something was up with the Hutaree story made by the mainstream media. Know, the truth about them is further known. CNN falsely said that the Hutaree cult was some how connected to the Michigan Militia website and the Tea Party Movement (even though I don't agree with them on every issue) Yet, the link between the Michigan Militia and the Hutaree group is not there. Many of the Tea Party activists have legitimate concerns about the government. Even I realize that not everyone in the Tea Party group want terrorism. The Hutaree wanted to kill cops, which is wrong. Some feel that certain people are exploiting these events in order to suppress free speech in America. The Hutaree group had a sick obsession with killing children. Many of them are probably mentally ill. One Hutaree member made a YouTube video dressed in camouflage and waving a machine sun speaking in a sinister altered voice. Some in the mainstream media want to use the raids to imply that every militia and Tea Party groups shares the Hutaree cult's violent agenda. On CNN, Potok claimed that anyone believe that some people wanting a new world order system is an extremist. That's a lie of course. The Michigan Militia website condemned Hutaree for its extremism. They condemned violence against law enforcement people as well. The CNN report featured a long lingering shot of a web page advertising an upcoming Tea Party event while the correspondent discussed charges of killing police officers using explosives. While the Hutaree allegedly planned to abduct and kill police officers as well as bombing their funerals, the Michigan Militia openly condemns “attacks or threats of any sort directed against our elected representatives or law enforcement officers.” Also, when is open carry of guns or the Second Amendment evil or terroristic? They aren't. Some in CNN trying protray patriots as terrorists don't work. Ironically, Anderson Cooper is from the Astor bloodline, he was trained to be a CIA agent (when the CIA initiated acts of real terrorism against the Third World and others since their creation in 1947), and is promoting this propaganda. His network and other used the lies (dealing with weapons of mass destruction) that carried forward over million Iraqis. CNN is even hyping up false information about Iran's nuclear energy program. They are no different than FOX in this regard. FOX is overt with it and CNN is covert with it. Suppression of free speech done by the left gatekeepers is just as wrong as suppression of civil liberties done by the neo conservative crowd. The media is very hypocritical when they compare political dissent with terror when they supported real acts of terror globally for over 50 years. The government exploits the Hutaree's decoys as an excuse to demonize Christians (especially if you believe in prophecy), anyone exposing the new world order agenda, and people who disagree with the establishment's propaganda. Potok is a liar by saying that no elites want world government when elites have called for a one world government by their own quotes for decades. The SPLC acts like a disagree contradicting their own supposed goals of promoting civil rights. The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI had an informant in the Hutaree group and participated in the alleged conspiracy to kill law enforcement officers. In sworn testimony, Thomas William Piatek is described as a Cooperating Witness and an undercover FBI agent. The FBI's Detroit's office didn't comment on this issue. If this is true, this isn't surprising since FBI people infiltrated like minded groups for years. A FBI informant worked in the Fort Dix Army New Jersey terror plot. “The only terrorist conspiracy was one planted and nurtured by the informant,” declared defense attorney Rocco Cip during the trial. The FBI’s role in the case was admitted by a provocateur. “The FBI informant paid to infiltrate a band of suspected terrorists in South Jersey said yesterday that he offered to organize their attack on U.S. soldiers, but only because he wanted to build trust and find out more about the group,” the Star-Ledger reported on November 11, 2008. A FBI informant worked in the Miami Seven case. Of course, Hal Turner is a FBI agent according to the third highest ranking FBI official in NYC. Turner admitted that he was recruited by the FBI's Newark based Joint Terrorism Task Force. He was paid in excess of $100,000 by the FBI during his almost 5 years as an informant. According to research conducted by Alexandra Natapoff of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the FBI maintains an army of at least 15,000 “confidential informants,” while the DEA admits to having 4,000 snitches. This is a small part of the entire informants working for state and local police agencies. The lesson here is that violence is wrong. Yet, we should never be ashamed and intimidated by the corporate media or anyone else in what we believe in. I believe in exposing proposed FEMA Camps, the new world order agenda, and other evils. The government might be reading these words, but my views are clear. The establishment can never crush real independent, thought provoking thought. They can never crush the Truth. I believe in being pro-life, pro-Nationalism, National sovereignty, being for the Second Amendment, and believing in personal liberties.

President John F. Kennedy is certainly underrated in his intellect. He could speak eloquently and he delievered a passionate vision on a myriad of issues. JFK wasn't perfect, but he did do many legitimate things. Later on his Presidency, Kennedy took concrete steps in opposing the agenda of the military industrial complex. This occured especially in 1963, which was revolutionary in that time. The establishment left (one person was a professor I had in college who was a liberal, but respected Eisenhower's foreign policy more than JFK's foreign policy. She implied JFK as been aloof, which is silly) and the establishment right hate him since he wasn't a brainwashed person following political paradigm. The record is that after the Bay of Pigs error, President John F. Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and others for their Bay of Pigs debacle (Bundy admitted his msitake). In 1962, he faced the Cuban Missile Crisis. He ordered a blockade to stop the crisis and prevent more Soviet missiles from coming into Cuba. Kennedy wanted peace, so he issued secret channels with Nikita Khrushchev to get rid of Soviet missiles from Cuba (while the USA covertly got rid of their missiles from Turkey). John F. Kennedy opposed many of the Generals like Curtis Le May since many of them desired an unilateral invasion of Cuba, which is wrong since that act could cause a conflict among the USA and the then USSR. Attorney General Kennedy worked with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dorbrynin to solve the problem since the military was putting pressure on Kennedy to strike Cuba. In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalled a further, chilling sentence from Robert Kennedy’s appeal to Dobrynin: “If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.” Khrushchev wanted to give the President help. As 1963 came about, both Kennedy and Khrushchev desired constructive peace efforts. They both supported a joint USA/Soviet march to the Moon. On November 12, 1963, JFK issued his National Security Action Memorandum 271, ordering NASA to implement his “September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.” They wanted a more peaceful planet as Kennedy rejected a Pax Americana plan of enforcement of American weapons of war in the world. This is opposition to the military industrial complex as they are dependent on the Pax Americana ideal (as said in his American University Address speech. Khrushchev and the Soviets loved the speech). Kennedy in July 25, 1963 signed with the Soviets a partial Nuclear test pan treaty. Kennedy negotitated the Test Ban Treaty without consulting the Joints Chiefs of Staff since they opposed it. Kennedy took on Big Steel since Big Steel did price fixing in violation of their agreement between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers's union. In a head-on confrontation with the ruling elite of Big Steel, JFK ordered the Defense Department to switch huge military contracts away from the major steel companies to the smaller, more loyal contractors that had not defied him. Some in the establishment hated JFK for these acts. Kennedy talked with Castro in trying to find a better relation with America. He issued the top secret order on October 11, 1963 to begin withdrawing the U.S. military from Vietnam. In National Security Action memorandum 263, he ordered that 1,000 U.S. military personnel be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that the bulk of U.S. personnel be taken out by the end of 1965. Defense Robert McNamara was told by the President that he wanted helicopters gone from Vietnam too. With his assassination, the Vietnam war escalated causing about 58,000 Americans to die and over 3 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians to die. John F. Kennedy unlike LBJ was for Third World nationalism. He supported the newly independent countries of Africa in the early 1960's and the President Sukarno of Indonesia. Sukarno wanted to be neutral and he coined the phrase of Third World, but the CIA wanted him dead. Under Eisenhower's Presidency, the CIA tried to kill and overthrow Sukarno, but they failed. Sukarno visited the White House in 1961 with the support of JFK. The CIA didn't like this. President John F. Kennedy wanted to work Sukarno and agreed to meet Indonesia in the Spring of 1964. If this occured, Kennedy would overtly show his support of Third World nationalism. Since JFK was murder, LBJ allowed the CIA to overthrow Sukarno in a purge of suspected Communists. More than 500,000 to 1 million Indonesians died from the event. Kennedy wanted to see an end of the contrived Cold War and extend his thinking into new areans. Quakers told JFK to harbor peace and give a food surplus to China. Kennedy said that he should follow the words of Jesus, but the China Lobby in Washington would resist him. In the fall of 1963 (or a year later), he gave wheat to the Russian since they had a severe grain shortage. His critics were saying that he was funding his enemies, yet it isn't evil to give legitimate aid to those starving or in need of legitimate supplies. So, President John F. Kennedy was a more eloquent advocate for peace than his critics proclaim. LBJ will never be JFK. JFK not LBJ proposed a war on poverty, civil rights legislation, a decrease of military involvement in Vietnam, housing legislation, etc. LBJ passed much of Kennedy's legitimate proposals dealing with Voting rights and Civil rights. Certainly, Kennedy realized that he didn't fear death and that true peace wouldn't be accomplished in his lifetime. Yet, there is nothing unrealistic and far reaching to promote the real tenets of a more peaceful world (that exists with nationalism, negotiations, strength, and peace). God is the Truth and we have every right to improve our course in life to project the creed of justice.

The New York Times calls the campaign helping women after abortion "propaganda." They are liars on that point like usually. The NY Times act like pro-life people aren't allowed to advertise a website and condemn abortion. Susan Dominus wrote her March 26 New York Times article called, "In Subway Ads on Abortion, a Pretense of Neutrality." She attacked recent ads for That is a website in which anybody touched by abortion can anonymously share their feelings and learn that they are not alone. Dominus began her story by noting the innocuous nature of the advertisement, but turns on the Web site after revealing its association with Project Rachel, a Catholic initiative. Dominus talked about the adverstisemnt and disaparaged all pro-lifers. She said that anti-abortion strategies go and it's oblique, which is a far cry from a brick in the window or a death threat to a member of Congress. This liar forgotten that for years pro-life people have been assaulted and murdered by pro-abortion extremists. Dominus omits that information typically. Michaeline Fredenburg, founder of the site, told Dominus, "We feel it's really important for women and their families to have a safe place to experience their own range of emotions, apart from the controversy and debate" surrounding abortion. Dominus lies and calls the effort to help women who suffered from the tradegy of abortion as propaganda masquerading as therapy. She's a liar since pro-life people have successfully healed women who were the victims of abortion among decades in American society. Dominus forgot that abortion on demand isn't about promotion women's right. It's about suppressing the rights of unborn human beings from recieving the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Dominus hypocritically tries to say that we Pro-Lifers are using slick tactics, but we are not. We use the overt tactic of having concern for human beings, while respecting life in all of its stages. Dominus omits that the pro-abortion Doula Project and Exhale link to the abortion provider Planned Parenthood on their sites. She omits that women on the abortionchangesyou website have free speech in showing women who regret (or not) of their abortions. We know what abortion is. Abortion is eugenics and it's murder.

An eco-extremists wants freedom to be gone in order to fight "global warming." He only wants a few people with authority to run the Earth. This person wants population reduction in a radical fashion. He is a renowed environmentist. He wants this policy to offset climage change and has called for a more authoritative world. He wants freedom to be submerged under what he sees as the devastating effects of global warming. The person is a futurist named James Lovelock. He wants to put democracy on hold for environmental purposes. He believes in the New Age Gaita hypothesis or that the Earth is one big living organism called Gaia. Lovelock doesn't trust the distorted climate data sent out by the UN affiliated climate scientists. “Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the Holy Ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.” he states in the interview. He said that he has little faith in renewable energies, carbon trading, or cap and tax schemes (in his interview with the New Scientist, he called them verging on a gigantic scam). He's right on the cap and trade issue since big industries will benefit grealty from a cap and trade system. Wind farms can take up too much space to energy huge energy. The Optimum Population Trust is another UK-based public policy group that want radical decline of the human population (into a "sustainable" level). Lovelock became a patron of the thinktank in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming. Lovelock said that: "...Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational..." So, he wants to use anti-population deception as a means to promote environmental extremism. This is nothing new. Roger Martin is the chair of OPT and he said of Lovelock's appointment as fine. The OPT wants depopulation and tie it to carbon emissions. The OPT have have as patrons controversial primatologist and environmentalist Jane Goodall, who thinks that caging chimps and other apes is better for them than letting them live free in the wild; Professor Aubrey Manning, president of the UK’s Wildlife Trusts; and Sir Crispin Tickell, the ex-diplomat credited with the “greening” of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The OPT have a patron named Sir David Attenborough (who is a BBC wildlife broadcaster and film maker), who called for a one child policy in Britain. This occurs in China and it's one of the OPT's main initiatives. Jonathan Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission as well. Porritt is one of the Prime Minister Gordon Brown's leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain's population must be cut in half from 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society. We have exhaustively exposed the nonsense behind the Earth's current population levels are exceeding sustainable levels and are contributing to devastating climate change. Yet, Lovelock and his ilk at the OPT remain in positions of influence. Lovelock follows the dangerous policy of geoengineering the planet in the name of controlling the climate. In 2007, he proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world's oceans in the order to pump water form the bottom of the seas (rich in nutrients) but mostly dead to the top. The idea was that action would make algae to breed, absord more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere. This chemical of dimethyl sulphid is known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Lovelock wants to try and block out the sun, which is the source of all life on this planet. Lovelock is apart of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. This organization supports the global warming movement. They want to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. This can risk the lowering of the global economy and living standards. This group is even more vehement than the national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming. He calls for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. Lovelock falsely believes that we have overpopulation in the Earth and carbon emissions risk our modern civilization. He believes that rising sea levels with make our Earth risk of death of species and man. Thse extremists like Lovelock, the Royal Society, and the OPT aren't alone in their views. John P. Holdren co-authored the 1977 book called "Ecoscience." In it, she supports mass sterilization, one child policies, and a Planetary Regime with the power of life and death. Holdren supported extreme geoengineering projects to try to cool the Earth. This plan calls for shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. This is similar to spraying chemtrails in the air. Leading NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen agrees with Holdren's view that industrial civilization should be destroyed to save the planet. The same talking points raised by the OPT and James Lovelock have been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government. The evils of sterilization and depopulation are popularized and embraced by extremists like they have been over 100 years ago. The environmental extremists are embracing near eugenics and this isn't surprising since the elite endorse eugenics. You don't exterminate people under fear mongering tactics. There is climate change, but not permanent man-made global warming. The agreement formd the TEC or the Transatlantic Economic Council or the TEC as a permanent body. Trade policy analyst named Daniella Markheim compared the TEC to the now defunct SPP (or the Security and Prosperity Partnership) of North America. The SPP and the TEC address property rights protections and enforcement, effective inspections and data sharing on food safety, border measures affecting trade, and other economic plus security concerns. She also added, “Both of these are forums that enable the U.S. and its significant trade partners to find new avenues to improve the flow of commerce and promote greater coherence and consistency in trade rules and regulations.” A Canada-EU free trade agreement would deepen transatlantic economic integration and advance plans for a common market in the region. 2011 could be a year when negotiations could be signed into a Canada EU CETA deal. NAFTA could be revived and expanded in a trilateral accord. This causes a liberalizing trade in goods, services, investment, and procurement. These interlocking superstates are a foundation of world governance like the EU. Some even desire a North American Union being made incrementally. NAFTA merged with the SPP agenda plus the TEC (including Canada EU CETA) forms the basis for the Transatlantic Union.

There is the Transaltantic agenda. Canada wants to expand its trade horizons. The CETA is currently being negoitated with the EU or the European Union. This appeals to be based on the flawed NAFTA model. Many view it as an opportunity to decrease its trade reliance on the U.S., but it could serve to accelerate the corporate takeover of the uSA. The deal would exceed NAFTA in its scope. The third round of negoitations are scheduled for April 19-23 in Ottowa. There are still lingering conerns about its lack of transparancy. A Canada-EU-CETA could be used to expand NAFTA, strengthen U.S.-E.U. economic relations and further advance the transatlantic agenda. Some believe that the recent Canada U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement is an important step in providing protection for future bilateral trade relations, but in the process it opens up provincial and municipal contracts to foreign corporations. Maude Barlow and Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians criticized the Conservative government for giving up too much and receiving too little. In an collaborative article they emphasized that, “The provinces have been loath to sign the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement and did not agree to include subnational procurement in NAFTA because they could lose too much say in how public money is spent without getting any new access to the U.S. market...” They believe that the Canadian leader Harper wanted to have free trade talks with Europe to restructure Canada's economy to reduce the role of our communities in setting spending priorities (in the Buy American controversy). EU is using the proposed CETA with Canada in order for them to gain access to procurement and services (in areas of health, energy, water, and other sectors).
The Canada-U.S. Buy American deal is an extension of NAFTA and has set a precedent which could further reinforce EU demands. The Internet law columnist Michael Gesit wrote in mid-December 2009 that the EU had proposed negiotated an intellectual property chapter which could reshape Canadian copyright law. Geist wrote that: "...While the leaked document may only represent the starting European position, there is little doubt there will be enormous pressure on Canadian negotiators to cave on the IP provision in return for ‘gains’ in other areas.” This ties into Canada's participating in the ACTA or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negoitations that includes the E.U., and other nations. Geist believes that the Canada-EU CETA acknowledged that combined with the ACTA, the 2 agreements would undertake a significant rewrite of its law. Geist wrote that: "...The notion of a ‘made-in-Canada’ approach – already under threat from ACTA – would be lost entirely, replaced by a made-in-Washington-and-Brussels law.." The U.S. and the EU singled out Canada for criticism on intellectual property and are pressing for copyright along with other reforms. Conceding to such demands could severly compromise Canadian interests. People are disagreeing with the scope and process of Canada EU trade negotitions. These talks are in secret and there is little disclosure on them by the Canadian government or the media. Groups like the Council of Canadians want transparency on these activities. They wants comprehensive impact assessment, protection for public services and procurement, along with the exclusion of any investment chapter. There are fears that a Canada-EU CETA could include provisions such as NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which gives corporations the power to challenge governmental laws and regulations that restrict their profits. Peter Julian (a NDP International trade critic) criticized Canadian negotiators for using the obsolete and harmful NAFTA template. Julian wants a fair trade model not a NAFTA style agreement. A Canada/EU CETA agreement would promote transatlantic ties and could later include the U.S. as well as Mexico. In 2007, the U.S.-EU reached a deal on a new Transatlantic economic partnership in an effort to work towards eliminating trade barriers increasing investment and streamlining harmonization on regulatiosn.

By Timothy


  • At 17:37 , Anonymous Montana said...

    I love that they asked for “Public Defender”, they know now that there was an undercover FBI agent. The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point. These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now that their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing, they are crying again. They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones who have guns and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around in the parks playing commando, the majority understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn. So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches.

  • At 18:55 , Blogger Timothy said...

    Here's my further response on this issue. It's true that a possible FBI agent was apart of the Hutaree crew, which isn't representative of a real Militia, but were extremists. They weren't real conservatives, but those that immorally seeked violence as an excuse, which is truly not righteous at all. You call the Tea Party people a sexual slur. If you continue in that, you are no different than those who call others slurs as well. I don't agree with all of the Tea Party people, but I won't subject my mind in name calling in making my points.

    Also, I don't agree with McCain and Sarah Palin as they accept an authoritarian neo con philosophy especially as it pertaining to foreign policy. I don't agree with yelling in debates, but being cordial is never an excuse in compromising what you stand for or allow the mainstream media to promote lies. The Health care law has legitimate provisions and some errors that people like even liberal Ralph Nader have exposed. People shouldn't intimidate or scare people, but make the facts known on a myriad of issues using sound judgment and concrete evidence. You are correct to point out that many issues have complexities and extremists usually see the world in typically a black and white scenario. Also, I don't follow the Tea Party Movement, which is your misconception. They are correct to promote individual liberty, the 2nd Amendment, and having legitimate skepticism of many governmental policies. They are wrong in allowing some of their members to be copted by the Republicans, some people (not all) have use disrespectful language in getting their points across, and they typical don't follow an economic populist message (that is beyond the typical Austrian/Keynesian economic paradigm). So, the truth is that the Hutaree group had a FBI informant most probably and the elite are using them to try to intimidate people speaking out about the new world order.

    Frankily, I will stand up as a man and not be intimidated. I'm not ashamed of my core convictions and I will repeatedly outline a concern of the poor, respect for the right to life, and a love for justice plus liberty for all people.

    By Timothy

  • At 18:56 , Blogger Timothy said...

    You know I will respond.

  • At 18:56 , Blogger Timothy said...

    This is what I do. I step up to the plate at any given moment.

  • At 22:21 , Anonymous Montana said...

    Timothy: two things 1) I enjoyed your response until I saw at the end "new world order". Needless to say that I was disapointed but hey as my mom always says "each mind is a whole other world". 2) Free speech is never in line with hate speech and if you go to this website you will see, as Preston says;

    "Likewise, each small meanness, each thoughtless expression of hatred, each envious and bitter act, regardless of how petty, can inspire others, and is therefore the seed that ultimately produces evil fruit, poisoning people whom you have never met and never will."

    Take care!

    Preston said:

  • At 23:38 , Blogger Khakjaan Wessington said...

    From Rood of Wood to Dream of the M-16 [Today's News Poem, March 31, 2010]
    “An Internet posting declaring war on a government agency was what provoked federal law enforcement to close in on the nine Christian extremist militia members who are now charged with plotting an attack on police.”
    -Emily Friedman and Tahman Bradley, ABC News, March 31, 2010
    “Mr. Putin said it is a matter of honor for law enforcement agencies to dredge the militants out of sewer and to bring them into God's daylight... Umarov says that if Russians think the war is far away in the Caucasus, then "praise Allah" his organization intends to prove that the war will come home to them.”
    -Peter Fedynsky, Voice of America, March 31, 2010
    “Drain the pond to catch the fish.”
    -Mao Zedong

    The holy word was written the stock
    “I dare you: face the other end and mock
    The Lord again.” Theology is lead.
    And true believers? Alchemists who dread
    What coming transmutations might unfold.
    It's better then to trade the faith for gold,
    Than wait for revelation's cloudy proof.
    Since fear of death rebuts the gilded roof,
    Since atheists believe we can redeem
    This nothingness, with self-inspired theme—
    That human love exceeds the evils done—
    Rebut them with the barrel of a gun.

  • At 23:54 , Blogger Timothy said...

    You I don't back down, so here's my response:

    The new world order is a real concept supported by many people and elitists like Gordon Brown, Bush Sr. It isn't a mysterious or acrhaic entity that isn't promoted by people. I believe in free speech. Also, hate speech goes both ways. It's just as wrong to demonize liberals unfairly as it is to demonize conservatives or Tea Party people by using sexual slurs as well.

    I don't believe in locking people up because their free speech, unless in an extreme case of someone threatening someone in a sick manner, etc. I don't agree with expression of free speech in a strong way or exposing the new world order is akin to hatred. I don't trust Potok or their ilk that exploit civil rights to violate human free speech rights (and lies by saying that no elite person desires a global government concept).

    By Timothy


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

src="" border="0">
Vote For TruthSeeker24's anti-NWO corner
at Conspiracy Top Sites


Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]