Global Warming Greenies And Sports Fans Suck !!!


The Global Warming hoax…

.

So what is carbon anyway?

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known life forms including the human body. Carbon is the second most abundant element by mass, averaging about 18%, after oxygen (in the form of water – H2O).

.

Then, what is carbon dioxide (CO2)

Carbon dioxide is a benign, life giving molecule. This molecule – CO2 – is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things and is even released through nocturnal emissions by plants and trees. Carbon and carbon dioxide are essential to all known living systems, and without it life as we know it could not and would not exist. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which approximately 93% comes from “natural sources” which are way beyond human control. Some of these sources include the decomposition of organic matter, exhaling (breathing) by living things, volcanic vents (which are by far the greatest atmospheric source), and natural methane gas. Thus, when it is said that a carbon tax is a tax on breathing, this is not far from the truth, although we exhale our share of supposed “carbon credit” by age 3. And because carbon is in methane gas, the carbon tax on breathing includes… cow farts.

.

O.K… so if carbon and CO2 are good for the planet, why are our leaders saying otherwise?

It has been said by those “crazy conspiracy theorists” for decades that the powers that be created “Ozone depletion” and the “Global Warming” schemes as a fear tactic, which could be used to control and tax not only the people of the United States, but the inhabitants of the entire world through the United Nations and its global governing bodies. Of course, as usual the theorists were right. It always takes some time, but the so-called theories of these well educated and quite excellent researchers (of which the elite, through the corporate controlled media portray as nuts, crazy, paranoid conspiracy theorists) almost always seem to be revealed over time as true. Why? Most of the time the facts, figures, and plans for these mass scams and hoaxes are written out in government documents and in elitist think-tanks like Agenda 21, PNAC, Operation Northwood’s, The Rand Corporation, and many other groups and papers which are unclassified, declassified, public record, or requisitioned through the Freedom of Information Act. In other words… not only do they write down their plans years before the carry them out, but they revel in the fact that most people never figure this out.

(RANT ALERT!!!   RANT ALERT!!!)

Instead, these gullible masses would rather watch a pigskin full of air be carried back and forth on 100 yards of fake grass and kicked between what I consider an easily attainable extra large set of metal posts by some of the most steroidal and mongoloid members of the human species (mentors and hero’s they are not). Or maybe they prefer to watch the “sport” in which the most un-athletic of men and women, dressed in cardigans, polo shirts, and dress slacks stroke a little white ball with a multitude of divots onto vast plots of well manicured land hoping to get it as close to a little hole with a flag in it as possible, while being shown advertisements for every type of automobile and wrist-watch that are just outside of their budget, followed by bank commercials offering loans at interest. And its players are somehow the hero’s of many a child, teenager, and adult – if only they would speak truth to power with the platform they have. Instead, they wear and use the products they endorse and reap huge advertising fortunes while shutting up about the real world. Imagine the good Tiger Woods could do for the world by just getting involved in politics. Imagine some of the support O.J. Simpson would have gotten if he had actually done something good with his fame and fortune.

But then, why do you think there is so much money in sports to begin with? Why do professional sports players make so much money anyway? Simply stated, the whole organization is fixed, and the players are paid to keep this dirty little secret. Think about it: Why is it that in a football game with only minutes or seconds on the clock, the losing team suddenly scores three touchdowns – not enough to win the game of course, but enough to almost tie the game? Professional sports are run by the betting industry, which as we all know… is run by the mob. When you bet on sports, you bet that one team will win, and by how many points (the point spread). Thus, the point spread must be narrowed to insure that the bets are covered, insuring the house always takes in more money than it pays. There is no randomness in these sports. They are run by the mob. How do I know this to be true? I was fortunate enough to have been told this at the tender age of twenty-two by a couple of extremely old, extremely drunk former baseball players and a retired official who were sitting at my blackjack table as I dealt them cards, across from the sports book at Harvey’s, So. Lake Tahoe. They were smashed! I asked questions, they had drunk and disorderly answers. They both said they wished they were in the game today, only for the outrageous amounts of money these guys make. And they explained the sports book and how it works and the mechanics involved. Since I wasn’t a baseball fan, I don’t know their names, and I have no other proof to back this experience up except for my word and hopefully your logic and reason. It was one of those once in a lifetime moments of enlightenment, which I’ll always cherish. It was my first trip down the rabbit-hole and into the world of truth and cover-ups.

What’s most interesting about this is that when I’ve tried to tell people about it, nobody believed me. Even though everyone knows about Don King’s boxing empire and the pre-paid falls his boxers take in that sport (for the purposes of covering the bets) not a one of the devoted sports fans I tell this to can believe what I say about their chosen sport and the blind loyalty they have to it. Some faith in the goodness and wholesomeness of the church of Monday night football has them in a stranglehold of thickheaded imperceptibility.

Even some professional wrestling fans still believe that the WWF is real…

Jesse Ventura, in describing the two party political system to Larry King in 2008 said,

“In pro wrestling, out in front of the people, we make it look like we all hate each other and want to beat the crap out of each other, and that’s how we get your money, [and get you to] come down and buy tickets. They’re the same thing. Out in front of the public and the cameras, they hate each other, are going to beat the crap out of each other, but behind the scenes they’re all going to dinner, cutting deals. And [they’re] doing what we did, too — laughing all the way to the bank. And that to me is what you have today, in today’s political world, with these two parties.”

And so, when men like Al Gore say that global warming is real, the masses (the sports fans) believe it is too, without checking the source of his information. The faith is so strong that it cannot be broken, regardless of the overwhelming proof and record low temperatures that have been sweeping the globe. Ice storms in Africa, the lowest temperatures of all time in almost all 50 states of the United States, record snowfall levels in the history of recorded measurements, and now the earliest snowfall in Austria ever recorded.

Believe what you want, but the facts don’t lie.

*** Now that was the champion of all segue’s! ***

Global warming as the theory of the man-made global destruction of the earth’s climate is simply not real, and has no basis for rational debate because there is no evidence to support it that hasn’t been debunked.

Global warming as an occurrence due to cyclical fluctuations of the solar conditions of the sun is a proven scientific fact. Just as its opposite, global cooling happens inversely once the cyclical sunspot activity goes dormant again.

The truth is that plants grow healthier and produce more fruit when in a carbon rich environment. And the abundance of carbon and CO2 is the reason that in our lifetime the climate has been so livable and so abundant with these crops. It is the near future, as a predicted cooling of the earth’s temperatures due to the lack of sunspot activity leading to a mini ice age that we should be worried about. And it won’t be the first. (See more info at: iceagenow.com)

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Want Peace? Update The Geneva Convention!


After delving into the world of the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes bills, I have come up with an idea. A good idea.

You see, the Geneva Conventions don’t effect the occupations and invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan due to the fact that no official declaration of war was made by Congress. This make these so-called ‘wars’ illegal and unconstitutional. More importantly, it makes the war crimes, torture, and murder of innocent men women and children, including some of our own troops, not bound by these Geneva Conventions. (read full research: here)

The idea is quite simple. And yet it would put a stop immediately to the occupations happening now, and would halt the movement of troops into Iran, potentially stopping World War 3!

This, I know, is a bold statement… but please hear me out.

I think we should look into amending the Geneva Conventions to state two things:

1) These conventions shall include all signatory states and all peoples, in wartime or in peacetime, in regards to any use of military, police, or private forces for foreign or domestic purposes, and shall not be circumvented by rhetoric and “peace-keeping” efforts or undeclared war efforts, occupations, or invasions.

2) These conventions shall be retro-active to the date of their original, pre-amendment writing, and shall make all who have knowingly violated these conventions and continue to do so, bound by and subjected to the fines and punishments therein.

This simple amendment would solve a lot of our problems, and force legaly out of office and into exile or jail, and even the execution of many old war criminals and current politicians who have been complacent or complicit in said war crimes against the Middle East and around the world. This includes Mr. Bush and his father, President Obama (who is now attacking Pakistan and weeks away from entering Iran) Clinton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the countless others in the gang of war criminals who, until now, have gotten away with murder most foul simply because the peoples of the world are semantically unprotected by these conventions and human rights ideals.

It would also reign in our soldiers, and for that matter Blackwater and other private security firms, since the Geneva Conventions require that the State (country) is responsible its soldiers actions, and punishable there in.

If you don’t yet see the profound impact this one amendment would have on the world and the stopping of Americas unconstitutional killing fields in the Middle-East, let me explain:

Since the president and his cabinet are currently not constrained by these conventions – since we are not officially at war – they are free to do what ever they want, and will continue to pass heinous legislation and commit fraudulent acts of terror in undeclared wars against all countries, including our own. They will continue to be able to snatch anybody they please off of the streets in the act of rendition and imprison them, unconstrained by any human rights violations treaties. This is why they are able to torture and not be charged with war crimes.

If the Geneva Conventions were to be made to include all conflicts, wars, undeclared wars, invasions, prisons, prison camps, occupations, and anything else related to military and private security forces and prisoners or “detainees” and “enemy combatants” where ever they go, there would be no more war… unless Congress legally and constitutionally declared it, in which case their actions would be scrutinized under Geneva Conventions anyway.

This means peace, plain and simple.

This means that the crimes of 911 could be heard in a Geneva Conventions forum, no longer covered up by Americas fraudulent media.

This might also mean that our media might be complicit in the cover-up, and therefore indirectly responsible for the propagation these war crimes.

This means that anyone currently or whom was in the past involved in these illegal war crimes will be immediately punished and removed from office, and this would let loose the strangle-hold that the elites, corporations, and hopefully the United Nations have on our once legitimate system of government.

———————–

And so, I need help… Anyone that can tell me where to start with this or help me to get this idea going into reality would be greatly appreciated. Or, if you want to take it and run, by all means do so. Just keep me informed.

Any volunteers?

Contact me at: (tailgunnerblog@yahoo.com)

Thanks for reading,

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Monday, October 12, 2009

America Never Declared War, So War Crimes Don’t Apply ???


Is America at war with Iraq? How about Afghanistan? Pakistan?

The answer to these questions is perhaps the most important concept that the citizens of the republic of the United States can possibly understand.

The answer is… NO!

No legal or constitutional declaration of war has ever been stated, and therefore America is not officially in a state of war. And the implications of this are more far reaching than any of us realize.

Why is this fact so vitally important to the heath and welfare of America?

If you understand nothing else about the so-called “war on terror”, I wish it to be this: without an official declaration of war by way of congressional decree under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, America has no authority or legitimacy to attack, occupy, kill, or enter forcibly into another country. The president of the United States cannot declare war; only the congress can approve war. This means that our president, his cabinet, the Congress, and judicial branches of government are all in violation of our most cherished laws under the Constitution of the United States.

The following are the reasons this fact is so important to comprehend, and why if we don’t stop this from continuing to occur – in Pakistan, then Iran, and eventually in our own beautiful, once free United States itself – We The People of the United States of America will lose everything our Constitution grants to us.

—-> The Geneva Convention – this set of documents, of which America is a signatory, are international treaties binding all States that have accepted them. Almost every State in the world has signed the Geneva Conventions. The 1st and 2nd Geneva Conventions straight forwardly state that the sick, wounded and shipwrecked must be cared for humanely and adequately by the enemy state. “Combatants” must treat members of the enemy armies who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked as carefully as they would treat their own injured or sick. All efforts must be made to collect the dead quickly, to confirm death by medical examination, and to identify bodies and protect them from robbery. Medical equipment must not be intentionally destroyed, and medical establishments and vehicles must not be attacked, damaged or prevented from operating even if they do not contain patients. The 3rd Geneva Convention states: “Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War” members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands are to be considered without exception to be in the power of the enemy State, not in the hands of the individuals or troops who have captured them. The state is therefore responsible for their soldier’s treatment of POW’s.

The convention clearly states that Prisoners of war MUST BE:

– Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honor.

– Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.

– Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.

– Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.

– Supplied with adequate food and clothing.

– Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor’s troops.

– Given the medical care their state of health demands.

– Paid for any work they do.

– Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards).

– Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

In addition, prisoners of war MUST NOT BE:

-Compelled to give any information other than their name, age, rank and service number.

– Deprived of money or valuables without a receipt (and these must be returned at the time of release).

– Given individual privileges other than for reasons of health, sex, age, military rank or professional qualifications.

– Held in close confinement except for breaches of the law, although their liberty can be restricted for security reasons.

– Compelled to do military work, nor work which is dangerous, unhealthy or degrading.

The fourth Geneva Convention is: “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”, all individuals “who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power”

Protected civilians MUST BE:

– Treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence, insults and public curiosity.

– Entitled to respect for their honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.

– Specially protected, for example in safety zones, if wounded, sick, old, children under 15, expectant mothers or mothers of children under 7.

– Enabled to exchange family news of a personal kind. – Helped to secure news of family members dispersed by the conflict.

– Allowed to practise their religion with ministers of their own faith. Civilians who are interned have the same rights as prisoners of war. They may also ask to have their children interned with them, and wherever possible families should be housed together and provided with the facilities to continue normal family life. Wounded or sick civilians, civilian hospitals and staff, and hospital transport by land, sea or air must be specially respected and may be placed under protection of the red cross/crescent emblem.

Protected civilians MUST NOT BE:

– Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. – Forced to give information.

– Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.

– Punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. – Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

In reference to torture, the Geneva Convention states:

“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission … causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

“Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.”

“The following acts are and shall remain prohibited … cruel treatment and torture; … Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; “

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory … are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

(Geneva Convention, 1949)
———————————-

So, this certainly and without a doubt states that torture is specifically not permitted under these conventions. So why is our government and military (and private security forces contracted by the U.S. government) torturing, maiming, raping, humiliating, water-boarding, and mistreating prisoners and civilians and getting away with it? Why hasn’t anyone called foul: a violation of the Geneva Conventions against innocent civilians and prisoners of war?

Quite simply, it’s because no declaration of war was ever legally made. This is key to understanding America’s disposition…

– No declaration of war means there are no official prisoners of war.

– No declaration of war means the Geneva conventions do not apply.

– No declaration of war means that U.S. soldiers can do whatever they please with no repercussions, since the convention that places responsibility for our soldier’s actions onto the state do not apply.

– No declaration of war means that we are occupying another country or “state” against Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, which states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States …To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water… To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years…”

The term “enemy combatants” has replaced the terms “prisoner of war” and “civilians”.

Proof of this fact – that no war has been declared in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc… can be found in the following, which aired on CSPAN in October 2002:

During the October 2nd  and 3rd, 2002 House International Relations Committee hearing on the Iraq resolution, Ron Paul introduced an amendment which actually would have simply and officially declared war against Iraq. The following is that simple amendment, which would have put the United States legally and constitutionally at war and, more importantly, subject to Geneva Convention guarantees and other war crimes documents:

AMENDMENT TO H. J. RES. Ll

To be titled: “Joint Resolution declaring a state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

– Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: ‘‘That pursuant to article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”

Mr. Paul also stated earlier of the resolution, as it existed without his amendment:

“We are giving the President the authority to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. In other words, we are transferring the power to declare war to the President. He can declare the war and fight the war when he pleases. And that is number one. Number two, equal to number one; (the president will) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In this bill that we are working on, they mention United Nations 32 times — I am sorry, 25 times. They never mention article 1, section 8, once.”

“…No matter what you call it, we are talking about a resolution that permits the President to wage war.” – Ron Paul

The committee put Rep. Paul’s amendment to rest (into the trash) with no dissenting votes, and on the afternoon of 10/03/02, the House International Relations Committee passed this resolution, which gave the president (Bush) the power to send our armies into Iraq without a formal declaration of war by congress, without consideration of the unconstitutional act of preemptively attacking a state or country which poses no imminent threat to the United States according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and without the international constraints of the Geneva Convention or any war crimes legislation to restrain our troops from committing heinous acts of torture and violence against innocent woman and children, civilians, Iraqi resistance to foreign invaders, dogs, cats, livestock, or any other living thing in Iraq while “just following orders”.

And now, President Obama has sent troops illegally and unconstitutionally to Pakistan, without an official Congressional declaration of war. He has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and replaced them with even more private security “peace-keepers” like Blackwater (who changed its name to Xe due to such horrible publicity and war crimes charges). And he is about to make the mistake of “preemptively” invading and attempting to occupy Iran, which would be a fatal error in foreign relations considering Iran’s alliance and friendship with both China and Russia.

But then, Obama’s mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski has been after a conflict with Russia since his post as National Security Advisor in the Carter and Reagan administrations.

-Brzezinski advised Carter in 1978 to engage the People’s Republic of China and traveled to Beijing to lay the groundwork for the normalization of relations between the two countries. This also resulted in the severing of ties with the United States’ longtime anti-Communist ally the Republic of China. Also in 1978, Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyła was elected Pope John Paul II—an event which the Soviets believed Brzezinski orchestrated.

In 1979 Brzezinski saw the overthrow of US ally the Shah of Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Iranian Revolution precipitated the Iran hostage crisis, which would last for the rest of Carter’s presidency. Brzezinski anticipated – indeed some some have claimed he even engineered [Matthew Carr, The Infernal Machine: A History of Terrorism from Alexander II to Al-Qaeda, chapter 10.] the Soviet invasion, and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the PRC, he created a strategy to undermine the Soviet presence. – [Wikipedia: Zbigniew Brzezinski]

Brzezinski has had his hands in almost all American conflicts and foreign relations, from Red China to Iran Contra to Russia to Afghanistan to Vietnam. In 1981 Brzezinski revealed that he encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. This was part of a wider policy of forcing the Vietnamese out of Cambodia by funding anti-Vietnamese guerrilla groups that the U.S. helped create. [America Abroad – TIME Magazine]

Understanding that Obama is a student of and was mentored by Zbigniew Brzezinski is imperative to understanding the mentality and intentions of our president and his multitude of not-elected, appointed cabinet members. From Obama’s Chief of Staff – duel Israeli citizen Raum Emanuel, to foreign born Special Adviser Henry Kissinger, these elitist appointees rule our elected officials.

To further decry the importance of the illegality and unconstitutionality of the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan… a memo was given by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, dated January 25, 2002, urging President George Bush to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva Convention. In the memo, the corrupted White House lawyer referenced the 1996 law passed by Congress known as the “War Crimes Act”, which banned any American from committing war crimes – defined in part as “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention. The memo warns that the law applies to “U.S.  officials” and that punishments for violators “include the death penalty.” (NewsWeek, May 17, 2004)

Shortly after Gonzales’ memo came out, Secretary Powell wrote a dissenting memo arguing that Alberto Gonzales’ attempt to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention undermines more than a century of U.S. policy and practice. In that memo, he states:

“It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. … It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops. … We will be challenged in international forums (UN Commission on Human Rights; World Court; etc.).”

On March 19, 2003, despite these warnings by Powell and others, Bush (not Congress) declared a preemptive war in Iraq.

This one act alone – especially since it was proven that no “weapons of mass destruction” were anywhere near Iraq, nor that Iraq had the capability to produce such weapons, nor that Iraq or Sadam Huesain had anything to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers 1, 2, and 7 and the attack on the pentagon – and since Iraq posed no “imminent threat” to the United States, constitutes a “grave breach” of the Geneva Convention, which states:

“Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Fall 1990)

The U.S. Military Code specifies that it is a crime to violate the Geneva convention:

“Whoever, … commits a war crime, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, … and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. … Definition: As used in this section the term ‘war crime’ means … a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 [or acts] prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907 … ” (Section 2441: U.S. Military Code on War Crimes)

Also, after WWII in 1945, the United States led the formation of the “Nuremberg Principles” which formed the United Nations Charter. This charter binds every country in the world. It defines as a crime:

“Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances…”

For a chronological account of the actions taken by the U.S. Military under the leadership of George W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief which lead to multiple violations of the Geneva convention and U.S. Military Code, please go here: http://impeachforpeace.org/evidence/pages/torture.html

I could go on and on with countless violations of the Geneva Conventions, war crimes, Nuremburg principles, etc… but what would be the point? We are not at war.

This one little fact that has been overlooked and not reported by the media is the key to ushering in peace. Acknowledging it would mean the end of these illegal and unconstitutional occupations of innocent countries, and the unwarranted murder and impoverishing of whole populations. It would mean that torture, outrageous POW camps like Guantanamo Bay, and any other war crimes committed by this administration, our troops and Blackwater thugs overseas, and crimes against Americans themselves would be treated as such and punishable by the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes treatises.

The new president continues to abuse the jargon of the previous administration, calling for a “war on terror”. This is ridiculous, and is about as winnable as a war on mosquitoes. This war on terror can best be described as a never ending, un-winnable war, which will continue to allow the United States and the United Nations to invade and terrorize any country, any home, and even any American who challenges the corporate fascist control of America and abroad.

While we as mindless sheep continue to refer to the events in the middle east as:

the “war in Iraq

thewar in Afghanistan”

the new “war in Pakistan

and the impending “war with Iran” – which will no doubt lead to something akin to awar with the world”…

These politicians and appointed officials are making fortunes for their lobbyists and elitist co-conspirators though the corporations they own, chair, direct, advise, and profit from by awarding no-bid contracts to them in these occupied countries, but only after our military destroys them to create the need for reconstruction.

It is time for the American people to wake up and take responsibility for the war crimes and human rights violations that our government is perpetrating against the people, the families, and the innocents of the Middle-East. This will not stop until they have taken over, through the United Nations, all of the nation-states, not excluding our own. We, as responsible citizens can no longer afford to ignore these crimes. For the only other way that this will stop, is for the citizenry to stand up and say, “NO MORE KILLING”

We must do something now… for the hour is late, and every innocent death is on all of our hands. And they get bloodier by the hour.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Sunday, October 11, 2009

Diplomacy and Barack Obama: The Audacity Of The Nobel Prize Committee


Barack Obama and diplomacy do not belong in the same sentence:

He has reinstated the Patriot Acts.

He has invaded Pakistan.

He continues to invade Afghanistan.

He pulled troops out of Iraq… only to replace them with even more private security “police” – a privately funded army.

He is about to make the biggest blunder in history… by attacking Iran.

He allows Israel to continue it’s genocidal violence and stealing of land from the Palestinians by giving billions of tax dollars to Israel.

He refuses to use diplomacy to require Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, while threatening attack against Iran (who is a signatory) for the false propaganda that Iran is in the process of building its first nuke. Israel, meanwhile, has enough warheads to blow up the planet.

He continues to support troops in the streets in America, against the Constitution.

He has helped the United Nations to implement forced abortion policies in Africa.

He has done nothing of any significance at all as President of the United States, except to ruin any modicom of freedom and Constitutional liberty we have left.

So, to the Nobel Prize Foundation, I must ask once again… where do you come up with this stuff?

It’s actions like these that make me hope that there is a God, so that your souls are judged and you burn in condemnation of your treachery and contempt of the human race. That includes you too Obama. For accepting this award is akin to stealing from church, as someone good and deserving will now not recieve recognition for his or her work – not that the Nobel Prize Foundation would ever do anything to promote real diplomacy or peace.

First Al Gore, and now Obama? I am now convinced that this foundation is completely corrupt and should be rejected, boycotted, and made a mockery of.

(See why here: https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/158/)

Mr. President… your humility only fools the brainwashed idiots who elected you in the first place: who didn’t take the time to research you and your true nature and supporters. You are a travesty to America and the World, and when or if they realize your disgusting nature, I hope the wrath of their anger is felt by you in ways I can’t even begin to describe here.

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

October 9, 2009

The Nobel Prize: An Award For Liers Like Al Gore


I was really mad when I was fooled (apparently like millions of others) into believing that global warming was a man-made event, because I simply watched a movie called, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gores movie won such massive acclaim, an academy award, countless accolades, and the man even won a Nobel Prize!

A Nobel Prize… I was especially curious about this. The Nobel Prize is a very distinguished and coveted award, and it’s not at all easy to be its champion. Therefore, when I found out that almost all of the information, facts, and figures used in Al Gore’s ‘shock-u-mentary’ were either doctored, misinterpreted, misrepresented, falsified, junk science, or completely fabricated lies, I wondered at the qualification process in being awarded a prize from the Nobel Foundation.

And so, I decided to send an email to the Nobel Foundation.

I had two questions.

1)    How does the group decide who to elect and what are the research and verification criteria involved?

2)    If a winner is proven to be a hoax, or in Gore’s case, use junk science and false information in his glorious work, is the prize then withdrawn or retracted from the corrupt recipient in question?

The following is a transcript of my correspondence.

—Ω—

To: comments@nobelprize.org
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 7:51 PM

Hello,

I have two questions I would greatly appreciate an answer to for a school project:

1) Has there ever been a case where, after earning a Nobel Prize, the prize was withdrawn due to dishonesty or fraud in the earning of said prize?

2) How was this acknowledged, and what would be the process for this to take place. (i.e. petitions, court case, vote, etc…)

I thank you for your time and consideration.

—Ω—

From: Sofia Bryngelson via RT <comments@nobelprize.org>
Subject: [nobelprize.org #3414] Help with questions…
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009, 1:25 AM

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in the Nobel Prize.

No, it is not possible to revoke a Nobel Prize, according the the statues of the Nobel Foundation § 10:

No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decisionof a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged.

A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.


Yours sincerely,

Sofia Bryngelson
Marketing and Communications Assistant
Nobelprize.org

—Ω—

To: comments@nobelprize.org c/o Sofia Bryngelson
Friday, July 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Hello Mrs. Bryngelson, and thank you for your timely response.

In regards to your answers to my previous questions, may I interpret your response as meaning – The Nobel Prize organization, if and when confronted with overwhelming evidence, obvious visual proof, or blatantly plagiarized writings or lies in regards to the qualifications and merits in the earning and bestowing of a past Nobel Prize, would not reconsider, convene a board to reconsider, or even mention to the public that the prize awarded was in fact earned under false pretenses, not merited, plagiarized, or was based on half-truths and lies?

And, if this is the case, what could possibly be a logical, reasonable, moral, or fiduciary  explanation for such behavior from a most respected organization?

As an organization with such uncompromisingly high standards of fiduciary responsibility to the world, I would be extremely disheartened with this organization which I have held in such high esteem for as long as I can remember if the above statements are indeed true.

This being said, the Nobel Prize surely represents the body of work of a person or group, and not the person alone. Therefore, if the “work” is proven to be contaminated or false after the prize is bestowed, surely the Nobel Prize committee would strive to keep it’s name in good standing as the premier academic amalgamate of our time by denouncing an award given under false or malevolent pretenses?

Again, your response to these inquiries is welcomed and eagerly anticipated.

Thank you,

Clint Richardson… a concerned citizen of the United States.

—Ω—

I never received a response to this, but today I resent the email hoping to ruffle some feathers and to make this apparently corrupt and phony organization own up to its deceit and fraudulent support of men like Al Gore.

I’ll keep sending this, and I’d really like for all of you to ask the same questions by emailing the Nobel Prize Foundation. Ask if they support global government. Ask if they support eugenics. And ask what their stance on depopulation, sustainable development through Agenda 21, and everything else these elitists are perpetrating on us.

Good luck and good night.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

Czars: Unconstitutional, Unelected, Unofficial, And Unwanted!


There has been a lot of talk about the appointing of and use of Czars in the current Obama administration. Quite frankly, I had no idea what the connotation of this word was, nor what the historical power of that title really meant throughout history and today.

And so, being the ever-curious soul that I am, I did a bit of research.

I’d like to share that with you now:

(Emphasis mine throughout!)

What is a Czar?

According to the 1984 Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition – the term Czar is defined as:

Czar:

  1. An emperor: title of any of the former emperors of Russia, and at various times, the sovereigns of other Slavic nations.
  2. Any person having great or unlimited power over others; autocrat

Czarism:

  1. The Russian government under the Czars.
  2. Absolute rule; despotism

Hmmm… I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound very good to me. It certainly doesn’t sound like a Democracy or a Republic, where leaders are voted upon before entering office. And I refuse to believe that America has fallen so far as to be so ignorant of the past that their jaws don’t drop at the mere mention of the appointment of multiple “Czars” into their government.

Since this was a hard cover traditional dictionary from 1984 (a fitting year for this information, if you ask me) I thought this might be a biased, older, or out of date description of the word used to describe the people who are now advising our president.

So, I checked the Internet.

Here’s what I found there…

I went to Wikipedia, a site I would never use as a source of accurate information, but one none the less that many people do, despite it’s ability to be changed by even the most moronic of its users. But I figure that at least this is the going public opinion of what a Czar might be. Never the less, after some fact-checking… here’s what it said:

Tzar or Czar (Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian): Term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. The first ruler to adopt the title tsar was Simeon I of Bulgaria.

Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.

“Tsar” was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:

  • Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185–1422 and in 1908–1946
  • Serbia in 1346–1371
  • Russia from about 1547 until 1721 (replaced in 1721 by imperator, but remained in common usage until 1917).

Under the heading “Metaphorical Uses” Wiki-Pedia states:

Like many lofty titles, e.g. Mogul, Tsar or Czar has been used as a metaphor for positions of high authority, in English since 1866 (referring to U.S. President Andrew Johnson), with a connotation of dictatorial powers and style, fitting since “Autocrat” was an official title of the Russian Emperor (informally referred to as ‘the Tsar’). Similarly, Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed was called “Czar Reed” for his dictatorial control of the House of Representatives in the 1880s and 1890s.

In the United States the title “czar” is a slang term for certain high-level civil servants, such as the “drug czar” for the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, “terrorism czar” for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, “cybersecurity czar” for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy, and “war czar” to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More specifically, a czar refers to a sub-cabinet level advisor within the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Under the political term explanation page, WikiPedia states the following:

Rationale:

Advantages cited for the creation of czar type posts are the ability to go outside of formal channels and find creative solutions for ad hoc problems, the ability to involve a lot of government players in big issue decision-making, and the ability to get a huge bureaucracy moving in the right direction. Problems can occur with getting all the parties to work together and with managing competing power centers.

One explanation for use of the term is that while the American public rebels at terms like “king” and “dictator”, associating them with King George III or fascist figures of World War II, the term “czar” is foreign, distant, and exotic enough to be acceptable. And the fact that czar positions are often created in times of perceived public crisis makes the public eager to see a strong figure making hard decisions that the existing political structure is unable to do.[6] Another is that Americans of the era adopted exotic Asian words to denote those with great, and perhaps unchecked, power, with “mogul” and “tycoon” being other instances.

The increase in czar positions over time may be because as the size and role of the federal government has grown, so too has the difficulty of coordinating policy across multiple organizational jurisdictions. Indeed, czar positions sometimes become important enough that they become permanent executive offices, such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy or the United States Trade Representative.

Wow! So how many Czars do we have now?

Well, buckle your seatbelts… for in July of 2009, The Daily Citizen reported that:

“It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that: Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.


“Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

“… Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

(Source: The Daily Citizen –  http://www.northwestgeorgia.com/opinion/local_story_189163602.html?keyword=topstory)

Steve Forbes is quoted while speaking about Czars:

“It underscores the inefficiency of government that you keep … having people, hoping that maybe they will get something done that the massive government bureaucracy cannot.”

(Source: “Questions Raised Over Influence of Obama ‘Czars'”. Fox News. July 13, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/questions-raised-influence-obama-czars/)

So who is paying these “Czars” salaries?

Why the taxpayers of course!

How much power do these Czars actually have?

Good question… As stated by the Daily Citizen above:

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

So much apparent power do these Czars have, that Rep. Jack Kingston [Republican-GA] introduced a bill – H.R. 3226: Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 – on July 15, 2009. Apparently this bill is so important to the members of the House of Representatives that it currently has 116 co-sponsors, all of them Republican. The one co-sponsor that was a Democrat was withdrawn at some point. When the whole of the Republican Party, including my personal hero Ron Paul supports a bill, which would reign in the Democratic President and party, one should not take such legislation lightly. The same would be true in opposite party circumstances. See the contents of the bill here:

(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3226)

The main concern here, one that is generally lost on the American people, is that these Czars are appointed without Congressional or Senate approval by one person: the President Of The United States. This alone should be enough to warrant extreme caution about the man who is for all intents and purposes in charge of our country (or more correctly: the man who signs the legislation and corrupt laws in the stead of lobbyists and wealthy elite bankers and corporations who funded his campaign and are incrementally taking control of our country). For the appointment of these men and women, of whom many have considerably tarnished and controversial political, economic, populist, and global oriented views, is a violation of the governmental and constitutional values we once held so dear to our hearts.

President Obama continues to keep in place and head the advice of such Czars as Paul Holdren – the “science czar” who co-wrote the book Ecoscience – “which proposed and supported such ideals as “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet.” (infowars.com). Strangely, these ideals were not brought to light in Holdren’s Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, this begs the assumption that the Senate is equally complicate in the appointment and support of these Czars, whether they are approved or not.

In conclusion, Obama appears to be out of control! While the gullible masses who support him are still admonishing him as the Savior of America, his empty promises of “hope and change” continue to ring – like a false Liberty Bell, whose crack is ever-widening and is about to break in half, along with this now condemned and nearly broken country. These Czars are the specters of false prophets; ghouls who resemble the character portrayal of Worm-tongue from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And I for one am sickened by the ill-boded direction our electorate has taken towards the support of these tyrannical and unconstitutional, unelected rulers.

Quite frankly, the words of a fictional but oh so relevant news anchor perhaps best suit the stance we should all be taking towards the president and these unelected psychopaths who advise him…

I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
October 5, 2009

The Not So New Declaration of Independence


I was reading the Declaration of Independence the other day (an act every one of you should do while it is still relevant and applicable) and I came upon the following section. It is the charges brought against King George, the King of Great Britain in 1776, by the 13 colonies as grounds for the Declaration of Independence.

What struck me the most was that of these charges: if but a few words, names, and institutions were replaced by current ones, including the United Nations, the followingwould be as extremely relevant today as they were in those tyrannical times.

Here are those charges:

——-†——-
(From: The Declairation of Independence, 1776)

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such disolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fitinstrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

——-†——-

Now, I don’t know about you… but I was taken aback by the similarities between these “grievances” and the same ones I have for our current administration.

Perhaps it is time that, like many states that have reasserted their sovereignty from the federal government, “We The People” should restate our grievances once more.

It wouldn’t take much, for sitting in a museum nearby is a brilliant document that is already written, and which we could just dust off and re-use for our quite similar purpose.

  • Replace King with “President”,
  • Great Britain with the “United Nations “and the“Federal Reserve”,
  • and the Colonies with the “United States”.

Suddenly, we have a document which cries for attention, which needs redistribution, and which holds the key to our liberty.

Just a thought…

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)

October 4rth, 2009