Sunday, September 06, 2009

Big Brother is Watching! (Part 1)

The mind-reading machine: 'Psychic' computer invented that can tell what you're thinking
By Fiona Macrae
12th March 2010
Volunteers were asked to think about video footage they had seen while their brains were scanned. A special computer was able to tell what they were thinking about 45% of the time
A computer program that can read your mind has been developed by British scientists.
In tests, it was able to access and interpret memories by scanning the brain patterns of volunteers.
The computer had a high success rate in telling which of three short films the subjects were thinking about.
Eleanor Maguire, of the University College London research team, said the work meant we were 'approaching the realm of mind-reading'.
The seven-second film clips showed women going about daily tasks, such as posting a letter. Then, while their brains were scanned, the volunteers were asked to think about what they had seen.
Left: Volunteers were asked to think about video footage they had seen while their brains were scanned. A special computer was able to tell what they were thinking about 45% of the time.
The brain lit up differently for each film, allowing the researchers to create a program that homed in on the patterns. The volunteers were then asked to think about the clips again and the 'psychic' computer worked out which one they had in mind.
The machine recorded a 45 per cent success rate - significantly higher than would have been expected through chance alone, the journal Current Biology reports.
Professor Maguire said: 'In our previous experiment, we were looking at basic memories, at someone's location.
Doublespeak: The Language of Deception

Part 1
By Marsha West
February 14, 2010
Liberalism is not what it started out to be. 20th century classical liberalism “stressed human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the need for constitutional limitations on government, and, especially, freedom of the individual from any kind of external restraint.” Liberals were usually thought of as kind, generous and compassionate.
In the 21st century liberalism has taken on a whole new meaning. Liberalism now holds that “the government should be responsible for providing the minimum conditions necessary for decent individual existence. In the early 20th cent. in Great Britain and France and later in the United States, the welfare state came into existence, and social reform became an accepted governmental role.”
Here’s a glimpse of what modern liberalism has wrought.
Barack Obama and the Tea Party Movement
In April 2009 far left actress and political activist Janeane Garafolo said this about conservatives who held Tea Parties all across this country because they oppose President Obama’s proposed “change” for America:
“It’s not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. It is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks and there is no way around that.”
Conservatives that want to put the brakes on Barack Obama’s out of control spending and plans for a single-payer health care system are racists? Rednecks?
Garafolo was using the language of deception. Her conservative-bashing is doublespeak, “straight up.”
Believe it or not a lot of Americans aren’t big fans of our president. But it has nothing to do with him being African American, it’s just that We the People do not support many of his fiscally irresponsible policies. Thus far we’re dissatisfied with his job performance. Is that a crime?
More and more Americans are rejecting the changes President Obama is bringing to America. We don’t want stimulus, bailouts, cap and trade, and socialized medicine. We are not the “party of no” – we are the citizens of no!
The Obama administration has moved this country so far to the left we’re on the verge of falling off a cliff and dying a slow painful death! Obama is doing everything within his means to go about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Those are his words, not mine.
Obama’s ardent desire is to move this country into European-style socialism. Well, he may want to see the U.S. go back to a European form of government, he may want to redistribute the wealth (he told “Joe the Plumber” he wants to), he may want a single-payer health care system, but most American’s do not want what Obama wants! And it appears that his far-left agenda has awakened a sleeping giant. It’s called the Tea Party movement (TPM).
TPM is a grassroots movement that includes people from all walks of life and political persuasions. Folks who are just plain fed up with high taxes and big government spending. We do not want a government that micro manages every area of our lives. What We the People want is our freedom!
Progressives/liberals have been highly critical of TPM. Liberal politicians, the lame-stream media, and Hollywood elites have dubbed these patriots “teabagging rednecks,” “astroturf,” “right-wing domestic terrorists,” un-American,” “evil-mongers,” “wingnuts,” “stupid,” “racists,” “fascists” and it has been said that they’re a “rowdy bunch of ignorant white protesters who have it in for the nation's first black president.” In addition, tea partiers are “not well educated” nor are they “up on the issues.”
Um…wrong! Tea partiers are red-blooded Americans who have decided it’s high time to raise their voices loud enough so that they’ll be heard by pompous politicians who have been ignoring them for decades.
It seems there’s a war going on right here in the U.S.A.: Elites vs. We the People...The Machine vs. Fed-up folks…Public education elites vs. Parents…Progressives vs. Pretty much everyone else.
Exactly what do “teabaggers” oppose? According to one website, excessive government spending and taxation.
What do these citizens want? To save the Republic.
They demand:
Safeguarding individual liberty
Fiscal responsibility
Ending bailouts for businesses
Fundamental tax reform
Constitutionally limited government
Free markets
This is conservatism “straight-up.” And for this they’re labeled fascists?
Some in the media portray tea partiers as dumber than dirt, even though it is obvious that this is a grassroots movement, a microcosm of America. Earth to progressives! TPM is a growing group of U.S. citizens who understand that socialized healthcare will eventually drive out the private insurance doctor/hospital system and spend America into bankruptcy. So is it any wonder these folks are fuming mad?
Big government politicians do not run America! We the People do. We elected them to represent us! Come November 2010 We the Voters will fire any representative that has blatantly ignored the people’s wishes.
We the Astroturf still have a few rights -- for now, anyway. One of them being the right to vote! We also have a right to make signs and banners and gather in groups of like-minded people to protest our elected official’s shenanigans. We the Dull of Mind go to the polls and cast the votes that elect politicians – both Democrats and Republicans. Their salaries and often excessive expenses are paid by the average American’s hard-earned tax dollars! And they have the temerity to mock and ridicule us for holding them accountable?
We are not Venezuelans – we are Americans!
The good citizens of this country are concerned, and rightly so, that “Current estimates put Medicare 56 Trillion in debt in the next 25 to 30 years. The total combined debt for Medicare and Social Security in 25 to 30 years is 80 Trillion. That will be over $600,000 per family.”  ( Both of these areas need a fix but not a fix with something that is clearly worse – and more expensive!
Citizens are concerned about the redistribution of wealth. That’s socialism! An example of this is Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy to cover his health care reform. His plan is to tax families earning more than $250 thousand a year. This is what he wants but We the Taxpayers are fully aware that there are not enough “big earners” to pay for it. Hence families that earn far less will end up footing the bill. Make no mistake. The majority of Americans will pay for ObamaCare (lessness) through higher taxes!
Meanwhile, We the Wingnuts are making it crystal clear to the liberal congressional leadership that we do not want a European form of government, nor do we want wealth redistribution, nor do we want to be burdened with the high cost of Pelosi/Reid/ObamaCare (lessness)!
Americans do not want national health care because it’s a terrible idea! Ann Coulter wrote that, “(I)t would turn over one-sixth of the American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from airport security to the post office to FEMA.”
Any group or person who speaks out against Obama’s radical economic policies is marginalized. You disagree with his policies, you’re a “racist” and a “bigot.” Oh please. Opposing Obama’s uber left agenda has nothing to do with the color of his skin. It has everything to do with preserving this nation as our Founder’s intended.
We the Awakened are riled up. As the saying goes, “Don’t tread on me!”
The Secular Religion of Global Warming
There’s an abundance of doublespeak in the radical environmental movement. Global warming/climate change/climate crisis (now morphing into climategate) proponents are intolerant of skeptics that question their motives. This in spite of the fact that the case for global warming is experiencing a serious meltdown. It recently came to light that the famous Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting as some scientists claim. Turns out the melting glacier assertion was based on a World Wildlife Federation pamphlet that was based on no science at all. God willing, the glaciers will be here in 2035 after all!
Woe to the doubter that stands in the way of greenies who are spreading their global warming propaganda. Former Vice President Big Greenie Gore said this about those who doubt that global warming is man-made:
"They're almost like the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."
Gore also said that global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers.
Prime Minister of England, Big Greenie Brown, seconded Gore’s characterization by calling global warming deniers “flat-earthers.” This is doublespeak for “ignoramuses.” It was an odd thing for Brown to say, seeing that just prior to making his silly remark British scientists were exposed for manipulating data on global temperatures.
Big Greenie Gore has maintained that global warming is “settled science.” But he’s just kidding. I know this for a fact because many respected members of the scientific community question the science behind global warming. At long last global warming zealots, including Gore, are being asked some hard questions. One can’t help but wonder why the greens avoid answering them.
I for one would like Big Greenie RFK, Jr. to answer a few questions. In 2007 he wrote this:
For those last stubborn holdouts still skeptical about the existence of global warming--e.g., CNN's chief corporate fascism advocate Glenn Beck, who broadcast another of his denial tirades last week--and to those who exalt the warmer weather as preferable to a snowy winter, consider the impacts on our fellow creatures. Last April an early spring in Wyoming's Teton Range caused horseflies to arrive early. The young Redtail hawks, who were still unfeathered, were devoured in their nests by the voracious bloodsuckers. Not a single baby Redtail survived to fledge in the Jackson Hole valley.
His article ended with this mean-spirited rant:
The recent disruptions to animal and plant behavior are evident to anyone except for ideologically blinded right-wing flat-earthers and Exxon/Mobil's political and media toadies like Michael Crichton, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. [Read:]
You can bet Rush and Beck won’t be holding their breath for an apology, nor will Exxon/Mobil. Michael Crichton died in Nov. 2008. (Crichton angered radical environmentalist when he debunked global warming in his novel State of Fear. Gore made this bizarre comment in response to the book: “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor [...] if your doctor tells you you need to intervene here, you don't say 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem'." Sounds like Al Gore has a fever!)
Haven’t heard much from RFK lately, but to be fair, he lives on the East Coast so he may be busy shoveling snow off his driveway after the climate changed from warm to freezing cold and ushered in a blizzard that dumped as much as three feet of snow on parts of the mid-Atlantic region. “This was an epic storm,” said Andrew Ulrich, a meteorologist for “The sheer amount of snow was amazing.” It’s kind of pointless to worry about the horrors of global warming when you’re hip deep in snow.
As would be expected people of the U.S., Canada and Britain are losing confidence that gorebull…er, global warming even exists. No surprise there. We’ve been hearing for quite sometime that many well-respected scientists say the planet is cooling.
OK then. Now taxpayers must decide what to do about the fact that billions of dollars were spent to reduce “greenhouse gases” and to develop “clean energy” apparently to perpetrate a gigantic fraud. For what reason, you ask? This fraud was carried out (1) to pass new forms of taxation; (2) to line the pockets of the participants. Big Greenie Gore was on this gravy train.
I’ll bet the faces of climate alarmists turned as white as a sheet when they learned that the latest research shows that the “experts” were wrong. But there’s some good news to report. “The U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change,” says Gary Bauer, “has issued ‘an unprecedented apology’ over a 2007 report that won the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize and later fueled much of the recent debate on global warming.”
“Similar in effect to the erroneous "2035" claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
”At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.” [Read:]
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama had the audacity to mention "the overwhelming evidence on climate change." Why would he say this when he has to be aware that the so-called evidence is bogus? Three words: Cap and Trade.
#More good news…
"The global warming movement as we have known it is dead," says Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations. "The movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics."
May the global warming movement rest in peace.
Part 2
By Marsha West
February 21, 2010
Abortion on demand
There is an abundance of doublespeak in the abortion debate. Note how instead of saying “women have a right to an abortion” the abortion lobby has coined this phrase: “Women have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.” So instead of aborting a pre-born baby (pro-aborts use the dehumanizing term fetus) a woman is simply “terminating a pregnancy.”
Call me dense, but here’s what I fail to understand. How is it that just being in the womb, unwanted, makes a child’s life of no value?
I’m reminded of Isaiah 5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
Now mull this over in your mind. When was the last time you heard an abortion supporter say, “I’m pro-abortion”? Pro-aborts proudly proclaim they’re “pro-choice,” or they’re for “reproductive rights.” Basically what they’re saying is that they believe a woman has a “right” to kill an unwanted pre-born human being. That’s weird. I mean, think about it. A woman has no “right” to kill an unwanted child outside the womb.
A botched court decision
In 1973 Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gave women the right to eliminate an unborn child for practically any reason. This rogue court made the decision without offering any constitutional defense of it whatsoever. David Kupelian wrote:
“[Robert] Bork offers a disturbing insight into the radical feminist-inspired pro-abortion worldview behind Roe v. Wade. ‘No amount of discussion, no citation of evidence, can alter the opinions of radical feminists about abortion,’ Bork states, illustrating his point with a story. ‘One evening I naively remarked in a talk that those who favor the right to abort would likely change their minds if they could be convinced that a human being was being killed. I was startled at the anger that statement provoked in several women present. One of them informed me in no uncertain terms that the issue had nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus but was entirely about the woman's freedom.’
“Such a supremely selfish brand of ‘freedom’ is chilling enough, but Bork then explained what ‘equality’ meant to Roe's backers, including those on the Supreme Court. ‘Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe and who never offered the slightest constitutional defense of it, simply remarked that the decision was a landmark on women's march to equality,’ explains Bork. ‘Equality, in this view, means that if men do not bear children, women should not have to either. Abortion is seen as a way for women to escape the idea that biology is destiny, and from the tyranny of the family role.’" [Read]
Since 1973 close to 50 million American lives have been terminated – some through the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.
Abortion is a huge part of the Democratic platform. Most Democrats, including Christian Democrats, support abortion on demand. Some “moderate” Republicans are also pro-aborts. But here’s the thing. Abortion is not part of the Republican party platform. The official GOP website states:
“[W]e assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
Pro-abort Republicans are RINOS – Republican in name only. They consider themselves “moderate Republicans.” But some of them prefer “progressive Republicans.” (Read: pragmatic.) Talk about a contradiction in terms! Progressive Republicans, a.k.a. Rockefeller Republicans or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans (“The object of government is the welfare of the people…" said Roosevelt) include Senators McCain, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, Snowe, Collins and newly elected Scott Brown. There are also a number of them in the U.S. House of Representatives. Three examples are Castle, Cao and Kirk. The list of governors includes Schwarzenegger, Crist, Rell and Douglas. I must digress from the topic of abortion to add a non-politician to the list who recently made headlines. “Miss Maverick” Meghan McCain declared on Larry King Live, “I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party.” Oh my! It seems Meghan’s hell-bent on redefining the GOP. This begs the question: Has she suddenly become “Daddy’s Little Liability”?
During Sen. McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign Miss Maverick made it known that she is “pro-sex, pro-life, pro-gay marriage.” As an advocate of same-sex “marriage” she believes “homophobia” should not be in the progressive Republican wing. So according to her, conservative Republicans—or anyone else--who oppose same-sex “marriage” are homophobes? (Homophobia is doublespeak for having an irrational fear of lesbians and “gays.” (More on this later.) That’s a weird comment for Meghan to make, especially in light of the fact that John McCain recognizes marriage as a “unique institution between a man and a woman.” Well now, I guess that would make her father a homophobe.
It would also make President Obama a homophobe. During the presidential campaign Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."
Speaking of President Obama, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-abortion voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. During the election Princeton professor Robert P. George called then Sen. Obama “the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States,” and “the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate.” Moreover, Obama is “the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.” (See President Obama's pro-abortion record here:)
Strangely, many young people value life
Here’s something that may come as a surprise. The younger generation is less likely to support abortion. Two reasons come to mind for this shift. First, the ultrasound. Immature teens look at the image inside the womb of a pregnant mom and realize what they’re seeing is a human being in its first stages of life. Hence more and more young people are coming to believe that it’s flat-out wrong to kill a child in the womb simply because it’s imperfect or unwanted! Second, most kids grow up with their parent’s values and beliefs. In other words, they tend to think like their parents. The consequence or irony being that pro-lifers bring more children into this world than pro-aborts. This explains the shift to pro-life.
Here’s a troubling statistic. There’s a higher rate of abortion among minority women. The abortion rate for black women is five times that of white women. Have black leaders like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, both professing Christians, passed this startling statistic onto the black community? As Christians you’d think both of these men would be working their tails off to shut down abortion mills like Planned Parenthood…because Planned Parenthood is helping to reduce the black population! (Make no mistake. PP makes big bucks doing it.) As ministers of God, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton should be pleading with African American women to stop killing their babies!
In the beginning…
In regards to the question, at what stage of development does life begin? the answer is obvious. Life begins at the moment of conception. “When does an acorn become an oak?” asked Greg Koulk on his radio broadcast. “Well, no one knows for sure…Of course we do! An acorn never becomes an oak. An acorn is an oak. Period. That's what an acorn is. It's an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it's an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, acorn doesn't describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It's kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn't a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age.”
Before you haul off and send me an angry email, PLEASE watch these videos:
4-D Ultrasound
The Silent Scream (Graphic!)
Lot’s of doublespeak comes from radical homosexual activists. Any person that deems homosexuality unhealthy and destructive or opposes same-sex “marriage” is accused of spreading “hate.” How does define hate? “To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest.”
In light of the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that homosexual and bisexual men are 50 times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals and that the principal way of spreading HIV/AIDS continues to be through male homosexual activity, those who believe it’s unhealthy and destructive are prudent to oppose it.
Sodomy is not only dangerous, it’s a sexual perversion. The following is from
Sodomy: Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.
Perversion: A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.
Unnatural: Contrary to the laws or course of nature.
What is natural? According to
Natural is in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
Many people base their opposition to homosexuality on their understanding of right moral actions, and of actions that are wrong because they view certain behavior as destructive and base. For them this is not a minor matter. Acting against one’s own conscience is wrong because it goes against one’s settled beliefs. Those who believe that homosexuality is extremely hazardous to an individual’s health, as well as to the overall health of society, view it as wrong.
It’s not just conservatives and people of faith that wish not to normalize homosexuality. Many people feel this way. It’s just plain ol’ common sense to oppose the things people do that have been proven to be inherently dangerous!
Health is the issue
Parents insist that they’re kids eat fruit and veggies, stay away from sweets, and preach to them on the dangers of driving too fast, being overweight, smoking cigarettes, using alcohol and drugs. But they offer little or no information on the dangers of homosexual sex to their loved ones. Obese people can slim down. Smokers can quit. No one can quit HIV/AIDS! (Funny how Michelle Obama’s 2010 focus will be on childhood obesity, a problem she calls an epidemic. She worries about children’s well-being, and rightly so. On the other hand, Mrs. Obama fully supports homosexual causes. It seems odd that she has not outwardly shown concern for youngster’s well-being when it comes to same-sex sex, which often results in a variety of diseases and afflictions that harm the body. HIV/AIDS is a death nell. Certainly eating right and keeping fit is the prudent thing to do -- but healthy eating and exercise will not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and the large number of other diseases homosexuals suffer from. How anyone can take a position on the former without taking a similar position on the later is illogical. The absurdity takes your breath away!)
Radical homosexual activists wrote the book on doublespeak. Admittedly, gay rights groups have been brilliant when it comes to confusing the message. They’ve labeled their opponents “intolerant” and “hateful.” You oppose same-sex sex you’re “homophobic.” The dictionary gives two roots for the prefix “homo.” The Greek “homo” means “same,” the Latin “homo” means “man." Phobia comes from the Greek “phobos,” meaning “fear.” Do “gays” and lesbians really believe people fear them? I doubt it.
Calling someone a “homophobe" is a political tactic used to bully people. In our PC society what people fear most is voicing how they really feel! Ironically, homosexuals have come “out of the closet” and those who disagree with a lifestyle that’s full of risks have gone “in the closet.”
#In light of the fact that habitual homosexual acts cut years from a persons life expectancy, why are parents not making every effort to shield their children from it? But no. Instead parents allow public schools (which have become nothing more than progressive indoctrination centers) to promote the homosexual lifestyle. What’s worse, Planned Parenthood is pushing for intensive sex-ed for children as young as 10!
Parents, wake up…please!
Part 3
By Marsha West
March 5, 2010
Illegal Immigration
The far left brands Americans who are against illegal immigration as “racists” and “xenophobes.” defines racist thus: “Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.” What is a xenophobe? “A person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.” C’mon! Most Americans understand that this country was built on immigrants from all over the world. Hence they support legal immigration. The majority of Americans who oppose illegal immigration do so based on the rule of law. Isn’t it a tad ridiculous to call people racists and xenophobes because they insist people who come to the U.S. enter through the front door, not the back?
Those who are adamant about all immigrants abiding by U. S. laws are law abiding—cautiouss—prudent citizens. But racist? Xenophobic? Hardly. Illegal immigration advocates are proficient at using doublespeak.
Roy Beck of Numbers USA got in trouble with the “pro-amnesty, pro-foreign-worker-importation, pro-forced-population-growth America's Voice” for saying to tea party people that, “immigration policies drive growth in welfare use.” He also said, “half of all immigrant households with kids make use of welfare systems.”
It’s true!
According to Beck:
“The latest government data (for the 2008 year) show that 53 percent of all households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) with one or more children under age 18 used at least one welfare program that year.”
Beck’s source? The public use file of the March 2009 Current Population Survey collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
And for giving the folks the facts? Beck was accused of “immigrant-bashing.”
What’s behind this madness? At a June 2009 Washington conference for the liberal America's Future Now!, Eliseo Medina, international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), chirped, "We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters."
In other words, amnesty will insure progressive rule for the long term. Sweet.
Americans Losing Their Freedoms
The government is taking away our freedoms at an alarming rate. Our elected politicians know exactly what’s going on — they just don’t want the Americaan people to know. The lame-stream press knows it too. But the fact is most of the media are progressives. So much of what’s going on is unreported -- or underreported. In other words, the free-press deliberately tries to keep the folks in the dark because, for many of them doing this serves a perceived “higher purpose.”
But folks are starting to wake up. Many have joined the tea party movement. The awakening is due largely to the Internet, conservative talk radio, bloggers, cable TV (like it or not Fox News has played a big role), plus former public officials that feel they have nothing to lose by being honest with We the People concerning the deception, diversions and doublespeak that oozes from Capitol Hill.
In his article, “Politicians Taking Away Your Freedom,” Thomas Sowell writes about the dangerous distractions:
“If eternal vigilance is the price of freedom,” he says, “incessant distractions are the way that politicians take away our freedoms, in order to enhance their own power and longevity in office. Dire alarms and heady crusades are among the many distractions of our attention from the ever increasing ways that government finds to take away more of our money and more of our freedom.”
Distractions are ploys politicians use to change the subject and to point We the People away from the truth. For example, those who oppose ObamaCare(lessness) are accused of “astroturfing.” Anyone that disagrees with same-sex “marriage” is a “bigot.” Which is utter nonsense. People who desire that marriages remain between one man and one woman are not “bigots” nor are they “hatemongers.” How is it hateful to want what’s best for children and for society? What is hateful is calling someone a right-wing wacko, a bigot, a homophobe, a xenophobe, or hate-filled simply because they oppose higher taxes, infanticide, same-sex “marriage” and illegal immigration.
Dr. Sowell continues:
“Another dangerous power toward which we are moving, bit by bit, on the installment plan, is the power of politicians to tell people what their incomes can and cannot be. Here the resentment is being directed against "the rich."
“The distracting phrases here include "obscene" wealth and "unconscionable" profits. But, if we stop and think about it-- which politicians don't expect us to-- what is obscene about wealth? Wouldn't we consider it great if every human being on earth had a billion dollars and lived in a place that could rival the Taj Mahal?
“Poverty is obscene. It is poverty that needs to be reduced--and increasing a country's productivity has done that far more widely than redistributing income by targeting ‘the rich.’
Amen! Redistribution of wealth smacks of European-style socialism.
I love the point Dr. Sowell makes next:
“You can see the agenda behind the rhetoric when profits are called "unconscionable" but taxes never are, even when taxes take more than half of what someone has earned, or add much more to the prices we have to pay than profits do.”
Let me be clear. Obama will raise taxes for the middle-class. Read my lips: Politicians promise not to raise taxes -- and then they raise taxes! Obama is a politician. Politicians lie. For example, during the election when asked about his involvement with ACORN then Sen. Obama said this:
“My relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. When... it's probably 13 years ago, when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN. And my partner in that representation was the U.S. Justice Department, in having Illinois implement what was called the Motor Voter Law.”
And this:
“It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a Motor Voter Law.”
Uh-oh-Obama also said this:
“When I ran Project Vote, voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it. Once I was elected, there wasn't a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn't right there with you. Since I've been in the United States Senate, I've been always a partner with ACORN as well. I've been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on issues you care about, my entire career.”
And this:
“And I definitely welcome ACORN's input. You don't have to ask me about that, I'm going to call you, even if you, if you didn't ask me.” (Online source)
President Obama claimed he had no involvement with that woman — oops! With ACORN. But, low and behold, a video recently came to light that shows him bragging about his involvement with the corrupt organization ACORN. As I said, politicians lie. Even the “Anointed One” Barack Hussein Obama lies.
More from Dr. Sowell
“The assumption that what A pays B is any business of C is an assumption that means a dangerous power being transferred to politicians to tell us all what incomes we can and cannot receive. It will not apply to everyone all at once. Like the income tax, which at first applied only to the truly rich, and then slowly but steadily moved down the income scale to hit the rest of us, the power to say what incomes people can be allowed to make will inevitably move down the income scale to make us all dependents and supplicants of politicians.
“The phrase "public servants" is increasingly misleading. They are well on their way to becoming public masters-- like aptly named White House "czars." The more they can get us all to resent those they designate, the more they can distract us from their increasing control of our own lives-- but only if we sell our freedom cheap. We can sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage.”
Secret CCTV cameras fitted INSIDE people's homes to spy on neighbours outside
By Daily Mail Reporter
19th November 2009
CCTV cameras are being fitted inside family homes by council 'snoopers' to spy on neighbours in the street outside, it was revealed today.
The £1,000 security cameras have been placed inside properties but are trained on the streets to gather evidence of anti-social behaviour.
Each device is linked to a laptop computer and accessible online by police and council officials 24 hours a day.
But the trial inside two homes by Croydon council in south London has sparked new fears about invasion of privacy and Britain's ‘surveillance society’.
The high street in Addington, Croydon. The London borough has become the first to test out placing CCTV cameras inside homes
And critics said the extra surveillance was only needed because police had failed to tackle the problem.
A council spokesman said the cameras would allow the authorities to respond quickly to anti-social behaviour and gather evidence for criminal prosecutions.
He denied they would be used to spy on neighbours and said more cameras could be installed if the pilot proves a success.
But critics say the scheme has echoes of the East German Stasi secret police, which recruited members of the public as spies.
Charles Farrier, of No-CTV, said that the move was ‘a step further in our Big Brother society’.
He said: ‘There is no evidence they act as a deterrent and we should be concentrating on the root problem anyway and working to gel our communities.
Alex Deane, director of Big Brother Watch, warned the cameras would create a 'culture of fear and mistrust'.
The cameras are used to look for anti-social behaviour (file picture)
He said: 'People accept these cameras into their homes because they are afraid.
'The council might be installing them with the best intentions, but the end result is a culture of fear and mistrust driven by a failure on the part of the borough and the police to have proper law enforcement in this area.
'Better to have real action from the failing authorities than to extend once more our surveillance society.'
A Croydon spokeswoman confirmed that the cameras cannot be seen from the street and refused to say in which areas they had been installed.
Residents taking part did not want their families or locations identified for fear of reprisals.
Images can be viewed on a computer and accessed remotely and the evidence used to take people to court.
The trials have been running for the past week.
But some local residents have backed the idea. Kirenna Chin, 30, said: ‘Louts use my hedge as a bouncy castle and urinate in my front garden. It's very intimidating.
‘It's a fantastic idea to fit hidden CCTV. If they offered me one I would definitely take it.’
Gavin Barwell, Croydon's cabinet member for community safety, said: ‘This is good news for residents.
‘These CCTV kits give us another weapon to fight anti-social behaviour quickly. We'll be working together with the police to put them to best use.’
Croydon has one of London's most advanced CCTV networks.
The control room is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there are 77 fixed cameras, a rapid-response mobile unit, and three wireless units.
ObamaCare Shocker: Send in the Social Workers
Written by Gregory A. Hession J.D.
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
The proposed Obama government healthcare bill has a government snitch network built into it, allowing social workers to gain access to your home under the pretext of checking on your new baby, or soon-to-be-born baby. It will result in many many more children being taken from families by state Child Protective Services agencies.
This is the fulfillment of a long-held dream by child protection agencies to gain access to homes, without first getting a report of abuse or neglect, as currently required by law. Mandated visits to homes by government agents has been a favorite cause of Hillary Clinton, and of the radical bureaucrats running the U.S. Administration of Children and Families.
This "home invasion" program is found on page 838 of the lengthy bill, in Section 1904, and it is called the "Home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The pretext on which the state agents would enter the home would be to "to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children." It sounds pretty innocuous, but based on my 15 years of fighting these bureaucrats in court on behalf of innocent families, it can be predicted that the way it will work in real life will be much more sinister.
Visits from the bureaucrats are voluntary in theory. (However, so are income taxes.) Here is how it will work: after your first appointment with your OB/GYN to confirm a pregnancy, the doctor will be required to report it to the leviathan healthcare bureaucracy. If you somehow fall through the cracks during the pregnancy, the birth hospital will do the honors of reporting you to the state. Then, chirpy social workers will show up at your house one day, and pressure you to allow them to come "voluntarily" into your house. These people are so-called "mandated reporters," who must report any abuse or neglect or potentially face fines and jail.
Certain populations will be targeted for this "help," and this should raise even more concern. Here is what the bill says: "The State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment." Translated, this means that poor and racial minority communities will be targeted, since they are more vulnerable and they cannot as readily access legal muscle to repel the invaders.
Once into your home, they will look around and find something, anything, to call "abuse" or "neglect." Their jobs depend on it, and you can be sure that the managers will set quotas, which will never be acknowledged. Then, they will open a case with a child protective services agency, and give you "services," whether you like it or not. In cases that they judge to be more serious, they will likely ask their legal department to bring a court case and possibly remove the children.
This is a backdoor means of obtaining agreement to go around the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar provisions in most state constitutions that prohibit entry into a home without a search warrant. If you agree, then you have waived your right to require a search warrant, which can only be authorized by a magistrate or judge on probable cause that a crime has or is being committed.
This part of the Obama healthcare bill is terrifying, and the numbers of children taken from families, as well as those who will have to endure weekly or monthly visits from a social worker, will increase manyfold. This conclusion is not speculative, as it is the whole reason for mandating these visits to homes in the first place. If they did not expect to kidnap more children and to open many more administrative cases, the provision would not have been there.
This is the first installment in a series looking at various fine-print provisions of the proposed Obama healthcare bill that deprive citizens of rights, or are of particular concern owing to their likely intrusion on personal privacy or family autonomy. Check back frequently for further parts in this series, where we will isolate and analyze the scariest parts of the 1017 page Obama healthcare bill.
Also See:
Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't! (Part 1)
14 April 2007
Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't! (Part 2)
21 May 2009