Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...
And when the season 'tis full past,
and all the eggnog is gone at last,
and sugary sweet, cookies, cakes,
have gone and all their vengeance take,
may your New Year's Resolutions hold,
and make of resolutions truth you told.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours...
Of family time and memories
to be recalled, and "jollily"
renew your laughter and lend a smile,
tying hearts together all the while,
as time flies by and leaves a sigh,
of contented thoughts of times gone by.
Merry Christmas to you and yours,
and may true joy fill the hours.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
E Pluribus Unum
"E Pluribus Unum"
And so on they say,
"Out of many, one"
And believe what you may
It won’t be one from many,
It’s not built that way
Its shape changed years ago
When power corrupted, blinded, swayed.
"E Pluribus Unum"
The intent of the Fathers
No longer a factor,
Considered but not obeyed.
Discarded by those who wished,
Planned to take what they may.
And "Unum" no longer existed:
Dreams from the Fathers dismayed.
"E Pluribus" turned away
From what the Founders did say.
"Unum" lost, pulled apart, torn,
Ripped from the future as well as the past,
"Unum" trampled upon by those
Who rewrite history,
Destroy the future for their want:
Power is their drug.
And addiction rules those who have it too long;
Gathering possessions, influence,
In hope to belong,
They betray grandchildren’s hopes, rights --
Prosperity stumbles -- and grandma was in power.
"E Pluribus" and "Unum" no longer talk.
Freedom for "Pluribus" just a word,
"Unum" took it all away,
Ground it into dust, soft, silky powder,
Light, floating, blowing:
Disappeared in the wind of "Unum’s" rule.
"E Pluribus Unum" escapes the lips of rulers
(As they laugh behind their eyes) and speak
Of what they will do to help all,
Favoring only their voters, helpers,
Friends, supporters, and lie to "Pluribus" again.
"E Pluribus Unum" had its blood spilled
Long ago, slow trickle at first, then
Over the wooden benches of the House
And Senate, pumped steadily onto the sidewalk,
Down the pavement, Congress’s twinkling eyes,
Laughing, as they wrote more laws,
Favored more their own,
Making "Unum" of themselves;
The rest to be the servants of the one.
Fiefdom, serfdom, servitude:
Citizens shall obey.
Or face the wrath
Of government’s path
And of "E Pluribus Unum"
Our lives shall go the same way.
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
"E Pluribus Unum" has gone that way.
Forever our future determined by "Unum" --
Until, sackcloth wrapped, "E Pluribus" discovers
Its voice again and stands against "Unum’s" full sway.
Consider the future and look to the past
For all things depend upon this:
Independence was won, not just with muskets --
‘Twas words first shot that fired --
When – if ever – our story shall change
And "E Pluribus Unum" takes long lost breath,
No blood need be let,
Nor bodies to bury,
But "wounds" shall be plenty;
And words start the story
Of "E Pluribus Unum’s" return!
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
And so on they say,
"Out of many, one"
And believe what you may
It won’t be one from many,
It’s not built that way
Its shape changed years ago
When power corrupted, blinded, swayed.
"E Pluribus Unum"
The intent of the Fathers
No longer a factor,
Considered but not obeyed.
Discarded by those who wished,
Planned to take what they may.
And "Unum" no longer existed:
Dreams from the Fathers dismayed.
"E Pluribus" turned away
From what the Founders did say.
"Unum" lost, pulled apart, torn,
Ripped from the future as well as the past,
"Unum" trampled upon by those
Who rewrite history,
Destroy the future for their want:
Power is their drug.
And addiction rules those who have it too long;
Gathering possessions, influence,
In hope to belong,
They betray grandchildren’s hopes, rights --
Prosperity stumbles -- and grandma was in power.
"E Pluribus" and "Unum" no longer talk.
Freedom for "Pluribus" just a word,
"Unum" took it all away,
Ground it into dust, soft, silky powder,
Light, floating, blowing:
Disappeared in the wind of "Unum’s" rule.
"E Pluribus Unum" escapes the lips of rulers
(As they laugh behind their eyes) and speak
Of what they will do to help all,
Favoring only their voters, helpers,
Friends, supporters, and lie to "Pluribus" again.
"E Pluribus Unum" had its blood spilled
Long ago, slow trickle at first, then
Over the wooden benches of the House
And Senate, pumped steadily onto the sidewalk,
Down the pavement, Congress’s twinkling eyes,
Laughing, as they wrote more laws,
Favored more their own,
Making "Unum" of themselves;
The rest to be the servants of the one.
Fiefdom, serfdom, servitude:
Citizens shall obey.
Or face the wrath
Of government’s path
And of "E Pluribus Unum"
Our lives shall go the same way.
"Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"
"E Pluribus Unum" has gone that way.
Forever our future determined by "Unum" --
Until, sackcloth wrapped, "E Pluribus" discovers
Its voice again and stands against "Unum’s" full sway.
Consider the future and look to the past
For all things depend upon this:
Independence was won, not just with muskets --
‘Twas words first shot that fired --
When – if ever – our story shall change
And "E Pluribus Unum" takes long lost breath,
No blood need be let,
Nor bodies to bury,
But "wounds" shall be plenty;
And words start the story
Of "E Pluribus Unum’s" return!
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Saturday, November 27, 2010
My Theory: All “Atheists” Believe in God
Could all “atheists” actually believe in God? Could it be that all their posturing, lawsuits, speeches, science, press releases and Madalyn Murray O’Hairs really belie their true beliefs? Startling to think that this could be true, but consider the evidence.
First: their chosen designation: “atheist”. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god". The “a” from the Greek meaning "without" or "not", and “theos” from God. So, an “a-theist” would be someone who is “not” God or “without” God (that “not” part is a given). If there is no God, then why include the idea of him in their name? Why not just say “pagan” (heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god), why include the idea of a god within the label of someone who does not believe in nor accept gods? That’s like saying “I am anti-baseball, but my name is Baseball.”
Second: If they don’t believe in God, why do they spend so much effort, time, money and breath denying His existence? After all, you don’t see them fighting the idea of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of leprechauns, do you? They don’t believe in those entities so they don’t fight the idea of their existence. However, with God, they spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, thousands of man hours, print reams of paper in books and pamphlets, post hundreds of thousands of atheism pages on the internet, and put in appearances on television and radio shows in order to deny the existence of someone they don’t believe in. If they don’t believe in Him, why the effort? Why spend so much money on Him? The more they protest the more they show how much they are worried about Him and the more they prove their belief. Why not ignore the issue as they do with the existence of Sasquatch or Tinkerbell if they do not believe?
Third: If atheists believe in medicine and science (and only medicine and science) why do they not consider that belief in God? After all, they prove His existence, do they not? Consider that medical science is always making discoveries on how things work with our bodies, and how miraculous they really are, and that is a sign of God. Evolution goes simplest to most complex, and tries not to get complex. With our bodies, we can see evidence of God in how they work, what makes them tick and in the ways that – miraculously – we are healed. Medicine cannot account for the kinds of miracles seen in the human body’s recovery, spontaneous remission of diseases, or in other things that human bodies do. They can neither explain them, nor deny them. God in action in the atheist’s belief in medicine.
Fourth: Science – besides medical science -- is constantly making new discoveries, finding the answers to new questions. Quantum physics (as did other fields of study) led to new laws that science’s observation, testing and deducing proved to be there. Did their discovery make those rules’ existence come about? No. Their discovery – their finding – simply proved that they already existed. Somehow, those rules of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics already existed before they were found by scientists. Those rules didn’t just pop into existence out of nothing. Did they “evolve” or were they pre-programmed by an intelligent designer who knew how things work?
Atheists believe that science will disprove God and they believe in science, yet all of science’s work (whether they admit it or not) proves the existence of God. To wit: If the universe, solar system, life, "evolved", then what happened to make it "evolve"? Wouldn’t there be some sort of need for evolution, according to the atheistic ideal of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest would not suffice in an universe of nothingness, void and without form. What would be the catalyst for evolution? If the universe developed purely out of randomness and these rules were not in play before the process started, then what put the rules into place? Was it the randomness that suddenly found order and the rules followed out of already existing order from randomness? Can that happen that without the rules in place the rules develop themselves? Fact is that chaos (randomness) can develop into some semblance of order, but the rules were there first to make it so, just as scientists finding those rules made the rules already there, and not the discovery of those rules birth the rules’ existence. Therefore, science has proven the rules – rules that make scientific and mathematical sense – were in existence prior to the formation of the universe. Therefore, intelligent design (it must be intelligent design for the rules to make sense) is responsible for the rules and thus, God existed prior to the universe’s existence.
Some of you would argue that last sentence, I know. But watch the videos here and and continued here and tell me that the rules were not there prior to scientific discovery. Science didn’t write the rules. Man didn’t come up with them and enforce them. If they weren’t done by man they had to have been done by God.
"But, wait!" some cry. "Nature could have done it itself!" The belief that there is no God demands the belief that nature had to have made all of the rules itself, but how did that come about? How did nature’s pre-universe (as we know it), pre-earth (as historically represented via Pangaea, etc.) pre-evolution (into humans) decide to write its own rules? Random atoms floating somewhere in darkness and tumult, banging into each other, floating without rules and without purpose, evolved order without outside interference? Random atoms chose of their own free will to cooperate, to lump together, to go in a certain direction at the same time, to change their physical and chemical characteristics and become something that – by chance and by random association – would become a universe, solar system, planet that would not only develop all of this out of nothingness, but also be capable of sustaining life as we know it? It not only sustains life, but it creates life out of non-life: a breathless (in any way, shape or form), non-eating, form without a heartbeat of any sort, without any sign of life whatsoever was created by this randomness and became suddenly alive. Alive in the sense of the scientific sense of the word: Life: (noun) "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." In the atheists’ world, randomness evolved into life, without interference of an intelligent being.
Fifth: Not only that, but all this randomness evolved into homo sapiens, humans as we know them. Just as Darwin described, atheists believe it to have been. Darwinism defies belief in God because we were not created, we evolved. Apes and protozoa and all of that; we came from nothing and to nothing we return. That’s all there is to it. Therefore there can be no God because there is no creation. That sort of thinking proves nothing. Saying that the existence of “X” always disproves the existence of “Y” is erroneous: they could co-exist, could they not? I do not believe in evolution as Darwin set it forth and others expounded upon. There are way too many problems with it and there is within the scientific community still disagreement on it. (Read more on that at Evolution Guy.) That being said, if any sort of evolution did occur, who is to say that God did not make that happen as well? The atheist’s insistence that God is not real because Darwin is, may just as well prove that God exists because things are happening in an orderly, intelligently designed fashion. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory – or a modified version thereof – may very well be a confirmation of God’s design and of His creative hand in the “evolution” of man. Atheists believe in God in that way, too.
Considering all of this, no matter which way you slice it, it seems to me that atheists are not atheists, but theists in disguise. They may profess that they do not believe in the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or in any particular god, but everything they profess faith in either proves the God of the Bible or at the very least does not disprove Him. Their own actions – which speak louder than their words – prove they are afraid of and don’t want God to exist. If I am correct and there is a God that we must answer to, then atheists have a lot to answer for as do Christians. The question is: Theists all, or just afraid of God?
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
First: their chosen designation: “atheist”. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god". The “a” from the Greek meaning "without" or "not", and “theos” from God. So, an “a-theist” would be someone who is “not” God or “without” God (that “not” part is a given). If there is no God, then why include the idea of him in their name? Why not just say “pagan” (heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god), why include the idea of a god within the label of someone who does not believe in nor accept gods? That’s like saying “I am anti-baseball, but my name is Baseball.”
Second: If they don’t believe in God, why do they spend so much effort, time, money and breath denying His existence? After all, you don’t see them fighting the idea of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of leprechauns, do you? They don’t believe in those entities so they don’t fight the idea of their existence. However, with God, they spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, thousands of man hours, print reams of paper in books and pamphlets, post hundreds of thousands of atheism pages on the internet, and put in appearances on television and radio shows in order to deny the existence of someone they don’t believe in. If they don’t believe in Him, why the effort? Why spend so much money on Him? The more they protest the more they show how much they are worried about Him and the more they prove their belief. Why not ignore the issue as they do with the existence of Sasquatch or Tinkerbell if they do not believe?
Third: If atheists believe in medicine and science (and only medicine and science) why do they not consider that belief in God? After all, they prove His existence, do they not? Consider that medical science is always making discoveries on how things work with our bodies, and how miraculous they really are, and that is a sign of God. Evolution goes simplest to most complex, and tries not to get complex. With our bodies, we can see evidence of God in how they work, what makes them tick and in the ways that – miraculously – we are healed. Medicine cannot account for the kinds of miracles seen in the human body’s recovery, spontaneous remission of diseases, or in other things that human bodies do. They can neither explain them, nor deny them. God in action in the atheist’s belief in medicine.
Fourth: Science – besides medical science -- is constantly making new discoveries, finding the answers to new questions. Quantum physics (as did other fields of study) led to new laws that science’s observation, testing and deducing proved to be there. Did their discovery make those rules’ existence come about? No. Their discovery – their finding – simply proved that they already existed. Somehow, those rules of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics already existed before they were found by scientists. Those rules didn’t just pop into existence out of nothing. Did they “evolve” or were they pre-programmed by an intelligent designer who knew how things work?
Atheists believe that science will disprove God and they believe in science, yet all of science’s work (whether they admit it or not) proves the existence of God. To wit: If the universe, solar system, life, "evolved", then what happened to make it "evolve"? Wouldn’t there be some sort of need for evolution, according to the atheistic ideal of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest would not suffice in an universe of nothingness, void and without form. What would be the catalyst for evolution? If the universe developed purely out of randomness and these rules were not in play before the process started, then what put the rules into place? Was it the randomness that suddenly found order and the rules followed out of already existing order from randomness? Can that happen that without the rules in place the rules develop themselves? Fact is that chaos (randomness) can develop into some semblance of order, but the rules were there first to make it so, just as scientists finding those rules made the rules already there, and not the discovery of those rules birth the rules’ existence. Therefore, science has proven the rules – rules that make scientific and mathematical sense – were in existence prior to the formation of the universe. Therefore, intelligent design (it must be intelligent design for the rules to make sense) is responsible for the rules and thus, God existed prior to the universe’s existence.
Some of you would argue that last sentence, I know. But watch the videos here and and continued here and tell me that the rules were not there prior to scientific discovery. Science didn’t write the rules. Man didn’t come up with them and enforce them. If they weren’t done by man they had to have been done by God.
"But, wait!" some cry. "Nature could have done it itself!" The belief that there is no God demands the belief that nature had to have made all of the rules itself, but how did that come about? How did nature’s pre-universe (as we know it), pre-earth (as historically represented via Pangaea, etc.) pre-evolution (into humans) decide to write its own rules? Random atoms floating somewhere in darkness and tumult, banging into each other, floating without rules and without purpose, evolved order without outside interference? Random atoms chose of their own free will to cooperate, to lump together, to go in a certain direction at the same time, to change their physical and chemical characteristics and become something that – by chance and by random association – would become a universe, solar system, planet that would not only develop all of this out of nothingness, but also be capable of sustaining life as we know it? It not only sustains life, but it creates life out of non-life: a breathless (in any way, shape or form), non-eating, form without a heartbeat of any sort, without any sign of life whatsoever was created by this randomness and became suddenly alive. Alive in the sense of the scientific sense of the word: Life: (noun) "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." In the atheists’ world, randomness evolved into life, without interference of an intelligent being.
Fifth: Not only that, but all this randomness evolved into homo sapiens, humans as we know them. Just as Darwin described, atheists believe it to have been. Darwinism defies belief in God because we were not created, we evolved. Apes and protozoa and all of that; we came from nothing and to nothing we return. That’s all there is to it. Therefore there can be no God because there is no creation. That sort of thinking proves nothing. Saying that the existence of “X” always disproves the existence of “Y” is erroneous: they could co-exist, could they not? I do not believe in evolution as Darwin set it forth and others expounded upon. There are way too many problems with it and there is within the scientific community still disagreement on it. (Read more on that at Evolution Guy.) That being said, if any sort of evolution did occur, who is to say that God did not make that happen as well? The atheist’s insistence that God is not real because Darwin is, may just as well prove that God exists because things are happening in an orderly, intelligently designed fashion. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory – or a modified version thereof – may very well be a confirmation of God’s design and of His creative hand in the “evolution” of man. Atheists believe in God in that way, too.
Considering all of this, no matter which way you slice it, it seems to me that atheists are not atheists, but theists in disguise. They may profess that they do not believe in the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or in any particular god, but everything they profess faith in either proves the God of the Bible or at the very least does not disprove Him. Their own actions – which speak louder than their words – prove they are afraid of and don’t want God to exist. If I am correct and there is a God that we must answer to, then atheists have a lot to answer for as do Christians. The question is: Theists all, or just afraid of God?
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Monday, November 22, 2010
Delta 4 Heavy
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
My husband has been in the rocket launch business for years. He has launched almost everything that goes into outer space and he's got hands-on experience as a member of the last all "Blue Suit" launch team. "Blue Suit" meaning all U.S. Air Force. He has launched Thors, Atlases, Deltas, etc., mated a few satellites into the Space Shuttle; basically, done it all. This particular rocket he was a back-up guy for Danny. A little technical problem prevented it from launching on Friday evening, but they got that straightened out.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
For the first time, we left our backyard and went to watch the launch within six or seven miles (as the crow flies) of the actual launch pad. We were there for the first try on Friday, but to no avail. We went back on Sunday and watched as it lit up, and took a slow crawl into the sky. It went up without a hitch (as far as I know), but not quietly. The sound made some of us whoop and it just rumbled. It rumbles at our house, too, but not like this. As we watched it go up I hoped things worked properly, because I have seen enough not make it to know that it would not be a good thing if something happened.
© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved
Nothing matches the feel of watching something that big and lumbering go into the sky. It makes one proud of being American to see that thing go up, to know that we made that happen. We have the technology to do such a thing, to make the satellites that fly on these lumbering behemoths, and the ability to do what few others can. My husband is part of that team. America's in safe hands.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Environmentalism: Establishing a Hereditary Theocracy
Environmentalists worldwide believe that the earth is either “warming” or “cooling”. Depending, of course, upon to whom you are speaking, you may hear either answer. They also believe that man – specifically Americans – are having drastically deleterious effects on the earth’s environment and that we are responsible for some “really bad” stuff that’s either happened, happening, or shall definitely happen in the future. It’s all our fault, especially America’s, and the responsibility falls directly at our feet when it comes to making the earth so polluted, hurting and dangerous. It’s not the earth’s fault. It’s us. We are the demons. We are to blame.
Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.
Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.
Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.
I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.
What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.
Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.
This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”
Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.
As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.
If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?
Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.
Not only do they believe this, but they are teaching their offspring to believe the same thing as well. It’s Mommy and Daddy teaching Junior and Sally that if they do “X” that it’s bad for the planet. A deep guilt complex lays on the children’s breasts as they exhale and as they poop and pee; adding bad things to the atmosphere, the water, the earth. It’s wrong to throw things away, to drive an SUV or anything other than a little scooter car that has as much power as a roller skate. Deep sighs of regret break through as they fly over to Europe on their sixth European vacation in as many years; but it is not all guilt and regret. They shall be heading to Ethiopia after their European spa vacation to help feed the hungry, dig a new ditch for them to get dirty water to the village instead of the villagers walking six miles a day and to feel better about their travel because – after all – it is helping people. That makes it all okay.
Never mind that the children are exposed to disease, exposed to dangerous ideas that, if implemented at home, will endanger the welfare of their own children and grandchildren as well as the rest of the country. Never mind that even though they are “helping” people, there are organizations that are already there that – if given the proper support of the corrupt government the environmentalists support – would be able to solve the problems in that country with their own efforts without outside “help”. Never mind that – twenty-five years from now, the children of the environmentalists will be doing the same work, with the same groups, but with more power if we do not stand up to their parents now.
Fact of the matter is that environmentalists are building a power structure based upon their singular belief that the environment is part of their “god” and part of their god must be served, protected, obeyed and worshipped. If we do not do thus, we shall forever be screwed. The earth will fight back and we shall all perish because “we did it to ourselves.” That belief – as parents are wont to do – is passed on to their children, as is the parents’ positions in a lot of the organizations that support the environmentalists’ ideas. Junior becomes Chairman of the Board of “The Natural Conservatory Organization” after Dad has passed on. It means continuity of the pattern, continuity of the leadership ideal, continuity of the vision: Junior is more trustworthy than the VP because Junior has the same genes, was brought up with it, has it not just in his teaching, but in his blood. A birthright has been established and it shall not be denied.
I say “theocracy” because it’s a belief system that is based purely upon faith and the ideal that the environment is “god”. Faith that there is “global warming” or “global cooling”; man can have a lasting impact on the environment; that if we tried, we could equal God’s creation as to how destructive we can be, how much damage we can do to the earth (as compared to how much damage the earth can do to us), etc. Faith has it that the Exxon Valdez has so damaged the planet that it will never be the same (is that always such a bad thing?) and that if we don’t change now, we will never have the chance to make things right. Faith has it that it was our pollution that made the deserts bigger, hotter and more arid. Faith has it that man has to be responsible for every bad thing the earth has experienced since its creation. That’s true faith to think all of that. Faith takes things that one cannot see, cannot prove, cannot show physical evidence of and says it is true anyways. Such is environmentalism therefore a “theocracy” is established.
What harm can this “Hereditary Theocracy” of environmentalism do? If we do not resist environmentalism now, we can kiss our children’s futures goodbye. If we do not fight environmentalist teachings, laws (incandescent light bulbs are going away after 2011), school systems to indoctrinate our children, then we sign our own warrants.
Not only will there be more laws establishing “the environment” as the first and foremost consideration for everything, but it will also mean that we will be limited as to what types of jobs we can have, what types of appliances we can have, what building materials we can use for our personal property (homes and office buildings; sheds even), what kinds of cars we will drive, the fuel we put into them, the airplanes we can ride on and what types of fuel they can use, perhaps how often we can fly without special permission, or tracking our mileage as we use our personal vehicles and company cars. Those who are not “environmental wackos” will be made to kowtow to those who are because those who have been taught the mantra, the faith, will be those who have the power. That power will come via having more influence in D.C., having friends in the business, knowing the right folks to contact about “X”.
This will enable the noose that used to fit loosely around the necks of the American people to be slowly, steadily tightened and before they know it, Americans everywhere will be using a set number of electricity watts per day as prescribed by the federal government under the EPA, after studies done by the environmental group, “Citizens United for Environmental Freedom” (or some such nonsense) find that “it’s the only sustainable way.”
Junior’s legacy will be a single child’s adoption from a foreign country with too many live births per capita (deemed unsustainable via the U.N.) and that child’s parents were lucky to get rid of the child prior to their being punished severely with food rations cut in half because they had a pregnancy that was not approved beforehand. Junior’s single child will have the inherited position within the environmental groups that his adoptive daddy has prepared him to inherit. All those policies Junior discussed implementing, the child – heir – will now put into effect because it will honor his adoptive father. It’s like Obama trying to make sure his daddy’s hatred of America and England, those dreams of destruction, come true; with Junior’s child trying to please daddy just as Obama is trying. This shall be seen in the environmental circles as a laudable thing; while to the nonbelievers, it shall just be more pain, less freedom and fewer constitutional rights for us and our progeny.
As the environmentalists get more power, as their heirs get more power, we lose more of our freedoms, more of our choices, more of our futures and of our children’s futures. Yet, that is what the environmentalists wish: power at all costs, even freedom’s. Your future, your beliefs matter not, nor does your desire to “live long and prosper” in America. If you do that, you may drop a piece of paper down a drainage pipe and that piece of paper is going to end us all. Freedom’s loss will be the environmentalist’s gain; as seen with legislated washing machines, toilets, light bulbs and gas millage.
If environmentalists are not stopped here and now, and our freedom restored, then when and where will they be? What will it take to make sure that your children or grandchildren have as much freedom as you and I? Or will it happen that they go all the way and our children’s children shall be paying the price for our desire to ignore it, to get along, to not make waves? If so, what shall their futures look like besides so very limited?
Environmentalism screams that we are the cause of all bad things. Environmentalism has faith that we are harming the earth with our deeds. Theocratic beliefs or not, environmentalists have no right – constitutional or otherwise – to impose upon the rest of us their beliefs. Legislating environmentalism is just as wrong as legislating that the Baptist Church become the “official religion” of America. Yet, with environmentalism, because there is no god specified (although everyone knows what is being worshipped), it is hunky-dory with those who would scream bloody murder otherwise. As long as it’s not the God of the Christian Bible, than any other god is okay; environmental earth worship included. Without due diligence on our part, their children will have power to place limits over our children and thereby doom our children to be less than what they could be, to do less than what they could have done, to be less of who they could have been. Environmentalism needs to be stopped now, sanity and common sense smacked into the people who have been brainwashed into it, and a return to the Founding Father’s principles of freedom restored. Otherwise, the hereditary theocracy will rule and our children’s children are doomed.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
An Open Letter to Elected Conservatives
If Conservatives win the House and Senate this November 2nd – especially if they have a veto-proof majority – I have a list of things you need to do in order to be deemed to be worthy of the office. Others may or may not agree with my list, but these are the things I think you should make a priority in order to make your election – our hope and trust in you -- worthwhile.
1) De-fund every position that was created by the health care reform bill and revoke it immediately. This will ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not spent on administration of the bill that should have never passed because the vast majority of us did not want it anyways. Progressives love to talk about the “democracy” (i.e., majority rule) that they think is the law of the land, but when it comes to governing against the majority of the people with health care reform, they didn’t listen to the majority of the people. Remove the funding for every position created in this bill: every secretary, administrator, every computer person, every janitor.
2) De-fund every czar position that Obama has created. No more money should be given to people who have unconstitutional powers to create rules and regulations over us that we – without constitutional authority – have to obey. No internet czar, no food czar, no health care czar should receive a dime of taxpayer dollars after you are sworn in.
3) De-fund every bailout scheme. Any time the taxpayers of America are saddled with another bailout scheme – caulking windows to banks and car manufacturers – the taxpayer has no say in it and they are strapped with the debt that comes from it. Just stop that nonsense now. De-fund every scheme that the taxpayers are being made to pay. No more government involvement in business bailouts!
4) Do serious and complete investigations of the voter fraud that has happened during these 2010 elections as well as the 2008 elections – including this administration’s (and Eric Holder’s) decisions regarding the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation. Investigate every incident in Texas, Florida, Arizona, everywhere and anywhere in America there was voter fraud reported and make sure that there is someone held accountable. The American people no longer want their votes to be stolen from them, defrauded from them, their voices to be negated and silenced because – according to our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution – we have the right to be heard. Those committing fraud have the right to go to jail! If George Soros is involved, the SEIU is involved, the ACORN people involved, throw them in jail! If Barney Frank is involved, Chris Dodd involved, Andy Stern or Obama himself involved, throw them in jail!
5) Revoke the incandescent light bulb law. We should be able to choose which kind of light bulb we have and the same goes for vehicles, washing machines, toilets, etc.! Get out of our wallets and out of our personal choices.
6) Remove Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General and stop all lawsuits of America vs. any U.S. state due to immigration laws. The States have the right to make their own laws. That’s set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV. The States have the right to make their own laws, to enforce those laws and to protect their residents – the U.S. Citizens – from anyone who will do them harm.
7) Make a law allowing America to find, drill for and refine its own natural resource oil, and any other natural resources that will enable America to build businesses here, make jobs here, be independent of other countries for our own resources and to be able to thumb our noses at OPEC nations, at Hugo Chavez, or anyone else who thinks that America should be kept dependent upon their country or company in order to have the resources we need to be able to function as a free and independent country.
8) Start impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama. He has broken his Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution” – not just once, but many, many times over with his socialist actions. Socialism is not part of the U.S. Constitution, yet Obama has made it his goal – nay, his life’s work – to destroy America and to tear down the very fabric of our lives and make America into a thing unrecognizable as a land of freedom and (dare I say it?) hope; a land where other aspire to come in order to live as only the freedom that America used to promise would allow. That dream, under Obama, has quickly become a distant memory and a whispered about “remember when”. That is not what he swore to do on his Inauguration Day. He swore – in front of the American people and the world – to uphold and defend America: America’s history, her freedoms, her promise, her goals as set forth by the Founding Father’s when he swore to “uphold and defend” our U.S. Constitution. He has not done that. He has done everything in his power – and some things that technically were NOT in his power – to remove America from its vaunted place in the world’s lexicon and to make America into a socialist third world power that is nothing like what we were set up to be. America used to be considered the best nation on earth and in less than two short years, Obama has changed that to America being considered the eighth freest country on earth. That’s not just wrong, that’s evil.
So, that’s my list so far. IF the new, Conservatives coming into public office will do these things, America’s freedoms will be restored, the faith of the American people will be renewed and your elections will be justified. You will have deserved being elected.
If, however, you go along and get along and do nothing of these eight suggestions, I see no reason to have elected you instead of any Obama kiss-ahem flunkie.
Do the right thing, Conservatives. Do the right thing and return freedom to America, return the purpose of America to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Remember liberty and restore it.
1) De-fund every position that was created by the health care reform bill and revoke it immediately. This will ensure that the taxpayers’ money is not spent on administration of the bill that should have never passed because the vast majority of us did not want it anyways. Progressives love to talk about the “democracy” (i.e., majority rule) that they think is the law of the land, but when it comes to governing against the majority of the people with health care reform, they didn’t listen to the majority of the people. Remove the funding for every position created in this bill: every secretary, administrator, every computer person, every janitor.
2) De-fund every czar position that Obama has created. No more money should be given to people who have unconstitutional powers to create rules and regulations over us that we – without constitutional authority – have to obey. No internet czar, no food czar, no health care czar should receive a dime of taxpayer dollars after you are sworn in.
3) De-fund every bailout scheme. Any time the taxpayers of America are saddled with another bailout scheme – caulking windows to banks and car manufacturers – the taxpayer has no say in it and they are strapped with the debt that comes from it. Just stop that nonsense now. De-fund every scheme that the taxpayers are being made to pay. No more government involvement in business bailouts!
4) Do serious and complete investigations of the voter fraud that has happened during these 2010 elections as well as the 2008 elections – including this administration’s (and Eric Holder’s) decisions regarding the New Black Panther Party and their voter intimidation. Investigate every incident in Texas, Florida, Arizona, everywhere and anywhere in America there was voter fraud reported and make sure that there is someone held accountable. The American people no longer want their votes to be stolen from them, defrauded from them, their voices to be negated and silenced because – according to our Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution – we have the right to be heard. Those committing fraud have the right to go to jail! If George Soros is involved, the SEIU is involved, the ACORN people involved, throw them in jail! If Barney Frank is involved, Chris Dodd involved, Andy Stern or Obama himself involved, throw them in jail!
5) Revoke the incandescent light bulb law. We should be able to choose which kind of light bulb we have and the same goes for vehicles, washing machines, toilets, etc.! Get out of our wallets and out of our personal choices.
6) Remove Eric Holder as the U.S. Attorney General and stop all lawsuits of America vs. any U.S. state due to immigration laws. The States have the right to make their own laws. That’s set forth in the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV. The States have the right to make their own laws, to enforce those laws and to protect their residents – the U.S. Citizens – from anyone who will do them harm.
7) Make a law allowing America to find, drill for and refine its own natural resource oil, and any other natural resources that will enable America to build businesses here, make jobs here, be independent of other countries for our own resources and to be able to thumb our noses at OPEC nations, at Hugo Chavez, or anyone else who thinks that America should be kept dependent upon their country or company in order to have the resources we need to be able to function as a free and independent country.
8) Start impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama. He has broken his Oath of Office to “uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution” – not just once, but many, many times over with his socialist actions. Socialism is not part of the U.S. Constitution, yet Obama has made it his goal – nay, his life’s work – to destroy America and to tear down the very fabric of our lives and make America into a thing unrecognizable as a land of freedom and (dare I say it?) hope; a land where other aspire to come in order to live as only the freedom that America used to promise would allow. That dream, under Obama, has quickly become a distant memory and a whispered about “remember when”. That is not what he swore to do on his Inauguration Day. He swore – in front of the American people and the world – to uphold and defend America: America’s history, her freedoms, her promise, her goals as set forth by the Founding Father’s when he swore to “uphold and defend” our U.S. Constitution. He has not done that. He has done everything in his power – and some things that technically were NOT in his power – to remove America from its vaunted place in the world’s lexicon and to make America into a socialist third world power that is nothing like what we were set up to be. America used to be considered the best nation on earth and in less than two short years, Obama has changed that to America being considered the eighth freest country on earth. That’s not just wrong, that’s evil.
So, that’s my list so far. IF the new, Conservatives coming into public office will do these things, America’s freedoms will be restored, the faith of the American people will be renewed and your elections will be justified. You will have deserved being elected.
If, however, you go along and get along and do nothing of these eight suggestions, I see no reason to have elected you instead of any Obama kiss-ahem flunkie.
Do the right thing, Conservatives. Do the right thing and return freedom to America, return the purpose of America to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Remember liberty and restore it.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Health Care Scam?
Received a scanned image from a friend September 25, 2010. That image made me go webcrawling because it made me go, "Hmmm... That's not right." The image is of the letter my friend received from the
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Research Triangle Institute and, to me, it's very questionable.
Why is it "very questionable"? First: Why on earth does the U.S. Government have to hire outside help to perform a U.S. Public Health Services survey? That's the header on the page; it's the U.S.P.H.S. letterhead. Why use an outside source to do this? After all, they have the resources and they have employees, or they could hire people to do the work without getting a third person involved. Why hire someone else to do this? And, why at this time (more on that later)?
Second: If you read the letter, they say that the people being interviewed are going to -- if qualified to participate in the actual survey (more on that later) -- receive thirty dollars each. There could be multiple people in the same household "chosen to participate", thus there could be almost one hundred dollars in the household given to people to answer questions regarding "health-related issues". So over 6 million taxpayer dollars are given to RTI to go house to house and ask "health-related issues" questions. Will you really be answering "health-related issues" questions, or will they be more related to something else?
Third: RTI states,
"Our activities both mirror and support national priorities and policies as well as diverse commercial, industrial, and academic endeavors." If they "both mirror and support" why choose them to give $6 million dollars walking around money to, when the administration could have and should have chosen an organization that is neutral. (BTW, was this contract put out to bid and if so, how many people/companies bid on this contract? What were the other bids? Who owns those other companies? What are the other companies' affiations [Soros?]?) Why choose an organization whose stated goals are "to mirror and support"? Why not choose a neutral organization unless there's a specific purpose to send the surveyors out to accomplish?
Fourth: Why the initial questions before you are "qualified" to participate? Are they looking for someone specific to give the money to? Someone, perhaps, who may be swayed by a little extra cash before they decide to vote for or against a certain person or idea? Why not just question everyone about their "health-related issues"? After all, we all have at least one thing to be thinking about, don't we? If we are healthy, we want to stay that way. If we are sick, we want to get treatment. If we are pregnant, we want a healthy baby and a good pregnancy and easy delivery. We all have "health-related issues" so why do they need to pre-screen the participants who will receive the thirty dollars? Is there another reason to do so?
Fifth: This survey is being conducted just prior to a mid-term election in which many of those who voted for shoving "health care reform" down our throats will be up for reelection. Where will these surveys be taking place: in whose districts? Will it be nationwide, no matter what? Or will it be only in those districts whose Senators/Congresspeople are facing defeat after voting in favor of "health care reform"? Isn't "healt care reform" a "health-related issue"? How many of those chosen to participate and receive that $30 will be those who will vote for the candidate up for reelection after they get that money? Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, is having a difficult time due to her support and vote in favor of "health care reform". Is it coincidence that the surveys are being conducted here?
Sixth: How accountable are the people walking around with this money going to be to the taxpayers? Will they be keeping copious records? Will they be getting identification, Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers, or any other type of record-enabling thing? What is the surveyor's responsibility to the taxpayer since they already have the money? Or will it be something that they can go spend the money however they wish once they get out into the neighborhood and there will be no accounting?
Seventh: Will they be bonded, licensed, insured? Will they be vetted prior to them being given identification and told to enter people's homes under the auspices of the federal government program they are working for? Or will it be similar to the U.S. Census in which several Census workers were found to be sex offenders after they had been employed by the Census? Or will they be more careful this time?
Will you be safe? Will your children be safe?
Eighth: Why do people need to be cleared to answer questions? Is there a set of particular people they are trying to question: i.e., is the survey being weighted? For instance: If they are trying to get people who were not going to vote for Kosmas to participate in the survey and they ask questions like, "Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas voted for the health care reform act. Does this tend to make you want to vote for Kosmas or against Kosmas?" Remember, it is a "health-related issues" survey. That question is related to health-related issues. After all, if it weren't for the people who voted for shoving the "Health Care Enslavement Act of 2010" we wouldn't have had that change and we wouldn't be facing the future difficulties we now are.
Ninth: If this information is being collected for "only for statistical purposes" why do the people need to be paid? And why screen people with initial questions? Why not ask the people in the household the questions, no matter their possible answers to the initial questions? Obviously, they are looking for a specific answer, a specific group of people, a specific result. So what result are they looking for? What statistic are they trying to secure: support for the "health care reform" supidity, or support for the candidate who supported it?
Tenth: Is this another "jobs" scam, similar to the
U.S. Census jobs? Remember how the U.S. Census kept getting busted for hiring people, having them work slowly for a few days, firing them, then re-hiring them for another portion of the U.S. Census? Remember that ridiculousness that made the summer jobs numbers supposedly better? Remember how all of that worked out? How about this stuff? Will all those RTI "surveyors" be part of the federal jobs program? And, if so, how about those people who take the survey and receive government money for participating? Will this administration be counting the survey takers as "government employees" also? What will that do to jobs numbers?
Eleventh: What benefits will the government get -- or does someone else benefit -- from this information? Find out the questions these RTI employees are going to be asking: both the initial questions and the survey questions. That will tell you the truth about what this survey is going to be doing for the "statistical purposes" of this administration. What will it benefit the government: or who within the government will it benefit? If it's benefiting the government, shouldn't we also get some benefit? After all, it is your six million dollars that is being spent, shouldn't you get some benefit of some sort?
Twelth: If RTI's stated goals and purposes are to "both mirror and support national priorities and policies", and it's going to be for "statistical purposes" that this survey is done, why bother spending six million dollars on a survey to be done by a company that already "mirrors and supports" the administration anyways? Does this make sense to you? Isn't that a bit like paying for an outcome that is already predetermined? Why pay six million dollars for something that is going to get the expected results anyways? Does this make any sense to you? Or is this being done for other purposes? After all, we already have the government agency upon whose letterhead this letter is written. Why hire an outside agency and pay give them six million dollars of walking around money, not to mention paying the employees to do this survey, and the contract amount? Why?
Which leads me to the last question:
Thirteenth: Is this Obama sending taxpayer dollars to his friends via another shady deal? Take a look at who RTI is. See any connections with this administration? How about
the fact that they lobby in favor of the health care issue? (Be sure to check out all of the tabs there, especially the "Issues" and the information on the group's lobbyists and revolving door info.) Or maybe you should consider
Erskine Bowles, President of the University fo North Carolina, which is part of RTI. Remember him?
He's part of the Obama appointed "Debt Commission". Nah. Nothing to see there. Then consider this RTI brochure that includes the line: "Education Reform Support, Soros Foundation/Bulgarian Ministry of Education (1998–2000)". Soros? As in George Soros? Is Obama paying back Soros with millions of your taxpayer dollars for the support Soros gave Obama in getting elected? Just asking, folks. Just asking. One more to look at would be
page five of
this RTI brochure. It has Soros in the brochure, too, as well as an organization called "USAID". There were 1,610 Google® search results for "Research Triangle Institute USAID Soros". RTI is the organization whose employees (vetted employees?) will be entering your house to ask you "health-related issues" questions.
USAID is a U.S. government aid organization that spends billions of your taxpayer dollars worldwide to help other nations. RTI is connected to USAID, to George Soros and has a history -- according to their own website -- of "mirror[ing] and support[ing}" the Obama administration. How much of your taxpayer dollars should be spent on a frivolous survey that an existing organization could conduct instead of giving Obama's supporters over six million dollars of your money to do the job?
I got the letter from a longtime friend who legitimately received it in the mail. He wasn't expecting to receive this letter, but he was not surprised to see that this administration was doing something so blatantly wrong. Thanks to my friend, I sent this information to Glenn Beck. I am also making sure Michelle Bachman and others know about it. I hope that they -- and that you -- will ask hard questions of the Obama administration and demand some real answers. Remember, it's your money. It's your right to ask questions about it and it's your right to demand that the government answer those questions. Contact the USPHS (they're the ones whose letterhead the letter is on) and
ask the USPHS why this survey, why now, and why RTI? Ask them under the the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Demand answers. It's your right to know.
Then, when you've asked the USPHS,
ask Obama, too. Use the FOIA to your advantage and get answers. Don't accept, "It's just a survey" as an answer. Find the TRUTH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)