I am reposting this article from the Jewish Quarterly since I linked to it before and it was taken down. Now that I will host the article here it will be harder for them to move :).
Nathan Abrams | Winter 2004 - Number 196
A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.
Smut peddlers
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman, author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), ‘Jews were prominent in the distribution of gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials’.
In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. Born in 1924, Sturman grew up in Cleveland’s East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn, eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s, Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200 adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth (typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos). It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.
The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch, who has been described as ‘the Donald Trump of porno’. The link between the two is Steve’s father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer of ‘adult’ films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on Channel 4.
Nice Jewish girls and boys
Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers as well as a sizeable number of female stars in porn movies of the 1970s and ‘80s. The doyen of the Hebrew studs is Ron Jeremy. Known in the trade as ‘the Hedgehog’, Jeremy is one of America’s biggest porn stars. The 51-year-old Jeremy was raised in an upper-middle-class Jewish family in Flushing, Queens, and has since appeared in more than 1,600 adult movies, as well as directing over 100. Jeremy has achieved iconic status in America, a hero to males of all ages, Jewish and gentile alike - he’s the nebbischy, fat, hairy, ugly guy who gets to bed dozens of beautiful women. He presents an image of a modern-day King David, a Jewish superstud who supersedes the traditional heroes of Jewish lore. No sallow Talmud scholar he. His stature was recently cemented with the release of a pornomentary about his life, Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy. As probably the most famous Jewish male porn star, Jeremy has done wonders for the psyche of Jewish men in America. Jeremy has also just released a compilation CD, Bang-A-Long-With Ron Jeremy. For £7.99 (including delivery), the lucky listener gets to enjoy Jeremy’s hand-picked favourite porno grooves along with narration by ‘the legend’ himself. As the publicity blurb gushes, ‘Out of the brown paper wrappings and into the mainstream’.
Seymore Butts, aka Adam Glasser, is everything that Jeremy is not: young, handsome and toned. Glasser, a 39-year-old New York Jew, opened a gym in 1991 in Los Angeles. When no one joined, he borrowed a video camera for 24 hours, went to a nearby strip club, recruited a woman, then headed back to his gym and started shooting. Although the movie stank, with a bit of chutzpah and a few business cards he wangled a deal with a manufacturer and started cranking out films. Within a few years, ‘Seymore Butts’ – his nom de porn which is simultaneously his sales pitch – became one of the largest franchises in the adult-film business. As the king of the gonzo genre (marked by handheld cameras, the illusion of spontaneity and a low-tech aesthetic meant to suggest reality), he is today probably the most famous Jewish porn mogul. Seymore Inc., his production company, releases about 36 films annually, most of them shot for less than $15,000, each of them grossing more than 10 times that sum. Glasser employs 12 people, including his mother and cousin Stevie as respectively genial company accountant (and matchmaker for her single son) and lovable but roguish general gopher. Glasser currently even has his own reality TV show (also broadcast on Channel 4), a ten-episode docu-soap called Family Business, whose opening credits show Glasser’s barmitzvah photo.
In search of a buck
Jews became involved in the porn industry for much the same reasons that their co-religionists became involved in Hollywood. They were attracted to an industry primarily because it admitted them. Its newness meant that restrictive barriers had not yet been erected, as they had in so many other areas of American life. In porn, there was no discrimination against Jews. During the early part of the twentieth century, an entrepreneur did not require large sums of money to make a start in the film business; cinema was considered a passing fad. In the porn business, it was similarly straightforward to get going. To show ‘stag’ movies or loops, as they were known, all one needed was a projector, screen and a few chairs. Not tied up with the status quo and with nothing to lose by innovation, Jews were open to new ways of doing business. Gertzman explains that
"Jews, when they found themselves excluded from a field of endeavour, turned to a profession in which they sensed they could eventually thrive by cooperating with colleagues in a community of effort . . . Jews have for a very long time cultivated the temperament and talents of middlemen, and they are proud of these abilities".
The adult entertainment business required something that Jews possessed in abundance: chutzpah. Early Jewish pornographers were marketing geniuses and ambitious entrepreneurs whose toughness, intelligence and boundless self-confidence were responsible for their successes.
Of course, the large number of Jews in porn were mainly motivated by the desire to make profits. Just as their counterparts in Hollywood provided a dream factory for Americans, a blank screen upon which the Jewish moguls’ visions of America could be created and projected, so the porn-moguls displayed a talent for understanding public tastes. What better way to provide the stuff of dreams and fantasies than through the adult-entertainment industry? Performers did porn for the money. As ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman commented, ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream.’
Secular sex
Like their mainstream counterparts, Jews who enter porn do not usually do so as representatives of their religious group. Most of the performers and pornographers are Jewish culturally but not religiously. Many are entirely secular, Jews in name only. Sturman, however, identified as a Jew - he was a generous donator to Jewish charities - and performer Richard Pacheco once interviewed to be a rabbinical student.
Very few, if any, porn films have overtly Jewish themes, although Jeremy once tried to get several Jewish porn stars together to make a kosher porn film. The exception is Debbie Duz Dishes, in which Nina Hartley plays a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell. It has sold very well, spawned a couple of sequels and is currently very hard to buy - perhaps indicating a new niche to exploit. Indeed, according to an editorial on the World Union of Jewish Students website,
"there are thousands of people searching for Jewish porn. After things like Jewish calendar, Jewish singles, Jewish dating, and Jewish festivals comes ‘Jewish porn’ in the list of top search keywords that GoTo.com provide".
Sexual rebels
Is there a deeper reason, beyond the mere financial, as to why Jews in particular have become involved in porn? There is surely an element of rebellion in Jewish X-rated involvement. Its very taboo and forbidden nature serves to make it attractive. As I written in these pages before, treyf signifies ‘the whole world of forbidden sexuality, the sexuality of the goyim, and there all the delights are imagined to lie . . .’ (‘Reel Kashrut: Jewish food in film’, JQ 189 [Spring 2003]).
According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.
Furthermore, as Orthodox Jew and porn gossipmonger Luke Ford explains on his website (lukeford.net): ‘Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah that marks a Jew living Judaism.’ It is also a revolt against (often middle-class) parents who wish their children to be lawyers, doctors and accountants. As performer Bobby Astyr put it on the same website, ‘It’s an “up yours” to the uncles with the pinky rings who got down on me as a kid for wanting to be musician.’
As religious influences waned and were replaced by secular ones, free-thinking Jews, especially those from California’s Bay Area, viewed sex as a means of personal and political liberation. America provided the freest society Jews have ever known, as manifested by the growth of the adult industry. Those Jewish women who have sex onscreen certainly stand in sharp contradiction to the stereotype of the ‘Jewish American Princess’. They (and I’m speculating here) may have seen themselves as fulfilling the promise of liberation, emancipating themselves from what feminist Betty Friedan in 1963 called the ‘comfortable concentration camp’ of the household as they set out into the Promised Land of the porno sets of Southern California. It signified their economic and social freedom: they were free to choose to enter, rather than coerced into it by economic and other circumstances. Once they had lain down, they could stand on their own two feet, particularly as female performers typically earn twice as much as their male counterparts.
Sexual revolutionaries
Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America. Some porn stars viewed themselves as frontline fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism. According to Ford, Jewish X-rated actors often brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic, sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast’. Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion. Astyr remembers having ‘to run or fight for it in grammar school because I was a Jew. It could very well be that part of my porn career is an “up yours” to these people’. Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, said (on lukeford.net), ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. Porn is no longer of the ‘what the Butler saw’ voyeuristic type; instead, it is driven to new extremes of portrayal that stretch the boundaries of the porn aesthetic. As new sexual positions are portrayed, the desire to shock (as well as entertain) seems clear.
It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequences’ that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would ‘ennoble all our art’ and ‘humanize sexuality’. Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich’s intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx (lukeford.net):
"Before I got my first part in an adult film, I went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich’s Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, 'love and sex'."
As Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner put it (E. Michael Jones, ‘Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos’ Culture Wars, May 2003), ‘Jewish rebellion has broken out on several levels’, one being ‘the prominent role of Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation’. Overall, then, porn performers are a group of people who praise rebellion, self-fulfilment and promiscuity.
What are we ashamed of?
This brief overview and analysis of the role and motivations behind pornographers and performers is intended to shed light on a neglected topic in American Jewish popular culture. Little has been written about it. Books such as Howard M. Sachar’s A History of the Jews in America (New York: Knopf, 1992) simply ignore the topic. And you can bet that the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the Jews in the United States did not include any celebrations of Jewish innovation in this field. Even the usually tolerant Time Out New York has been too prim to deal with it, although the more iconoclastic Heeb plans an issue on it. In light of the relatively tolerant Jewish view of sex, why are we ashamed of the Jewish role in the porn industry? We might not like it, but the Jewish role in this field has been significant and it is about time it was written about seriously.
Nathan Abrams is a Lecturer in Modern American History at the University of Aberdeen. He has just completed a book on neo-conservatism in the United States.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Truth About Porn
- My note: The author clearly misses the boat that the purveyors of filth are the Jews as evidenced by this article entitled Jews and Porn if you can see through this and substitute Jews every time he mentions "illuminati" then you will get the full Truth.
Throughout the Western World, the Christian foundations of decency, morality, restraint, and integrity; the very moral anchor which held our civilisation together for centuries, has come under a concerted and simultaneous multi-theatre attack, which in it's ferocity and intensity can only be described as diabolical. Here in Northern Europe, with some rare exceptions, the last bastion of what is true, virtuous and righteous, is to be found paradoxically, only amongst the followers of Islam, and make no mistake about it, even that community of faithful believers, is coming under pernicious attack by the agents of change, in the form of the welfare state; dabbling in the affairs of Muslim families, the education system, gradually breaking down the moral and belief systems of the young, and of course, the sick and twisted `entertainment industry` along with the mass media in general.
In my recent article, `Who Rules The World,`[1] I hypothesised that the very source of those afflictions, which have and continue to debase and de-construct our way of life, eroding ever more, all that was once marvellous and righteous, in lands which once formed what was known as `Christendom,` is literally the work of Satan/Lucifer, who with a little help from his legions of `Fallen Angels,` Demon helpers, and his bloodline [3]descendants known as the Illuminati, is establishing his dominion here on earth, just as he set out to do at the very beginning of time.
Having outlined in detail in that three part series the basis for my hypothesis, there is no need to elaborate further here. It is sufficient to direct the reader to that article so that he/she may judge for his/herself whether there is any credibility in my assertion.
Those elements of social and moral decay that we are witnessing today; the increasingly pornographic culture, high divorce rates; growing numbers of unwed single mothers; the hordes of illegitimate children; homosexuality and lesbianism, sexual perversion and the alarmingly high number of abortions, is not some new phenomenon. It is an ingenious and fiendish plot that has been around for many Millennia (see Sodom and Gomorrah and the cruel and debased cultures prevalent throughout the land of Canaan and further afield during Old Testament times)… designed to annihilate what is, the very heart and foundation of all good and decent society; namely, the family!
You are about to read written proof of this clandestine conspiracy. You will learn about who and what is behind it, and their fierce unwavering mission to degrade and eradicate the family, separate man from his mate, pervert and `filthify` our God given human spirit, and drag what's left of humanity after their multi faceted depopulation agenda has been taken to it's illogical conclusion, into a Luciferian nightmare, whereby a relatively small and immensely wealthy and powerful `bloodline` elite, hold sway as the `proxy` lords of this planet, for their master, Lucifer.
Destroy The Family.
In 1956, J. Edgar Hoover, [5] the then Director of the FBI, himself a 33rd Degree Freemason and therefore no stranger to Luciferian machinations and other deviant behaviour, somewhat paradoxically wrote:
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” The Elks Magazine (August 1956)
Mr. Hoover knew what he was talking about, and it is probably even truer today to comment that few people understand, or even consider the malicious forces now arrayed against the family, the institution of marriage and the very nature of our being. They simply cannot comprehend how hell-bent the forces of evil are on destroying the family. Read into the chilling words of Communist demagogue, Lenin: “Destroy the family and you destroy society," [1]and then get an idea of the dire and perilous nature of the situation.
Lenin had a devious plan to carry out his sinister plot and he wasn’t alone! We will deal with this in a moment. But firstly, it is necessary to recognise the direct parallels of our current state of affairs to the original Marxist Communist plot to eradicate the family, as was noted in the 1926 July issue of the Atlantic Monthly:
`When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other "bourgeois" institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. "To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shake-up, and we did," declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term "illegitimate children." This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary...
At the same time, a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.
"Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another," asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. "They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support!"
(There are three hundred thousand… shelter-less children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)
The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. [Marriage became a game where it] was not unusual for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. The peasants… bitterly complained: “Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.” Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections ( sexual) with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children. In some cases peasants have been obliged to sell [everything] in order to settle such… claims. The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.
During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused the younger generation… of indulging… in loose connections; they blame the girl students for practising frequent abortions… Russian women students… [noted] that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given… free abortions that factory women enjoy… Both in the villages and in the cities, the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.
…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other… The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'bourgeois customs' of Europe and America.
Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony.[2]
[1] Lenin merely repeated what Socrates had said and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have seen the consequences of the experiment.
[2] The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114. You can read the document in its entirety by clicking here.
Here’s how the scheme to destroy the family is mapped out:
1] Eliminate the sacredness of the marriage covenant from the minds of the masses. Make them believe marriage is outdated and blasé.
2] Inspire hatred against the family unit, manhood and fatherhood.
3] Institute no-fault divorce and encourage serial divorces.
4] Incite rampant promiscuity, fornication and adultery.
5] Make having illegitimate children become a common practice.
6] Convince society that a child in the womb is not a human being.
7] Provoke women to have abortions without regard to God or their consciences.
8] Make true love seem like cheap amusement.
9] Stimulate the people to confuse sex with love.
10] Create an environment that encourages unwed single motherhood.
11] Inspire men to disrespect, dishonour and abuse women.
12] Design laws that motivate women to commit paternity fraud.
13] Incite homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual immorality and perversion.
14] Influence men to effortlessly abandon children they sire.
15] Most importantly, provoke a fierce relentless gender war.
Is there anybody reading this who can't draw parallels with their own society?
As you have read above, what happened in the Soviet Union in 1926 was no accident, and it is important to appreciate and easy to see, that the social and moral carnage now occurring throughout the West; the high divorce rate, the huge numbers of unwed mothers, the rage against fatherhood, the gender wars, the overt battle being waged against marriage and the family, and the highly detailed attacks on the bedrock of our civilisation, are equally as well planned, orchestrated and micromanaged by the same evil force which established and funded that rotten regime.
We will now witness how certain Americans, like their Communist Russian counterparts, have also been and still are, determined to de-construct, dismantle and exterminate the family.
The Conspirators.
“The nuclear family must be destroyed , and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever it’s ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...” — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" — Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage. " -- [Robin Morgan, "Sisterhood Is Powerful," (ed), 1970, p. 537]
“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" — Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Rage, p.67
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." — The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971
"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free." -- [Andrea Dworkin. "The Root Cause," speech, 26 Sept. 1975, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (published in Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).]
"The care of children ...is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." — Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Centre for Research on Woman
"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." — Letter to the Editor: Women's Turn to Dominate, Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia; Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia, February 9, 1996
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." — Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."— Female Liberation , by Roxanne Dunbar.
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)
“…It is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" — The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971.
"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit any-more." — Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions (Quoted at beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)
I hope that the reader now understands by the sheer malevolence of the above statements, that the Communist `front group` known as the feminist movement, has nothing whatsoever to do with `women's rights,` and everything to do with the complete and total emasculation of the human male, the enforced collapse of patriarchy and the breakdown of the family, thereby facilitating the depopulation agenda[2] and aiding the implementation of the Satanic New World Order. This attack against the family, against the institution of marriage and against God and country is not a game!
These people are serious about abolishing the family unit, and the American nation, along with all other nation states in fact. They are relentless and will stop at nothing to eradicate God, morals, marriage, manhood, womanhood, fatherhood, motherhood, husband-hood and love of nation from our hearts and minds. Their mission is to persuade the masses to engage in a cloaked form of Satan Worship, disguised among other things as humanistic atheism, pantheism, `earth` worship, along with accompanying social aberrations such as misogyny, domestic violence, child abandonment, child support schemes and traps, paternity fraud, serial divorces, serial abortions, pornography, sexual perversion, homosexuality and lesbianism.
Pornography : Debasing Human Nature.
It cannot be argued that one of the most insidious weapons being used in this war against God's most honoured institution, is Pornography, and it is this aspect of the vengeful battle being directed against the hearts, souls and consciences of men and women, not only here in the west, but increasingly due to internet access, on a global scale, which I will now deal with in some detail.
Sexual material of all kinds is now all too easily accessible through television, movies, music videos, and particularly the Internet. Many will have us believe that this relentless intrusion of pornographic, sexualised imagery is harmless, but it is anything but. It is a debased aberrant form of human sexuality, encouraged by the agents of those doing the work of Lucifer, which is highly addictive, destructive, demoralising, corrupting and eventually fatal to any chance of a moral and decent way of life. Despite what its apologists and defenders say, pornography has a profoundly negative effect on how people view sex and sexual behaviour. Researchers at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education concluded not surprisingly that "exposure to pornography puts viewers at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies." According to the report, "the rape myth (belief that women cause and enjoy rape, and that rapists are normal) is very widespread in habitual male users of pornography."
There is also evidence that the repeated use of pornography can interfere with the ability to enjoy and participate in normal marital intimacy. Dr.Victor Cline, a specialist in treating sex addiction, has documented a recurring progression in the use of pornography. If left unchecked, what starts as casual viewing of pornography can eventually lead to an escalation to more hard-core, aberrant material. This, he claims, can lead to deviant sexual acts. Behavioural scientists agree. Dr. Cline reports that "any type of sexual deviation can be acquired in this way, and that it cannot be eliminated even by massive feelings of guilt." Eventually, the viewer may try to act out the pornography-based, immoral fantasies, often with devastating results.
The course of this problem may be gradual and undetected, concluded Cline. He states: "Like a cancer, it keeps growing and spreading. It rarely ever reverses itself, and it is also very difficult to treat and heal. Denial on the part of the male addict and refusal to confront the problem are typical and predictable, and this almost always leads to marital or couple disharmony, sometimes divorce, and sometimes the breaking up of other intimate relationships."
The Damage To Young People.
Some researchers say that exposure to pornography can affect the natural development of a child's brain. Of course it can! Statistics show that the primary consumers of pornography are boys between the ages of 12 and 17 years. In fact, for many, pornography is their primary source of sexual education. This has very disturbing ramifications. "Teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," notes one report, "are completely non-existent in porn, giving a false belief that there are no adverse consequences to behaviours depicted in pornography." Young males are being targeted by this industry of filth for a very definite reason: to warp and pervert their ability to interact normally with girls, by portraying the human female as little more than a collection of body orifices to be filled.
Dr.Judith Reisman, [6] president of the Institute for Media Education, and one of the most exceptional human beings currently inhabiting this planet, concludes: "Health-based neurological observations about the instinctual brain-imprinted response to pornographic sights and sounds indicates that viewing pornography is a biologically significant event that overrides informed consent—and that is harmful to children's [moldable] 'plastic' brains because it compromises their grasp of reality and thus their mental and physical health, their well-being and their pursuit of happiness."
Pornography shapes attitudes and influences behaviour. Its messages are enticing primarily because they are fantasy and thus presented as more exciting than the real thing. “Individuals using pornography set themselves up for unrealistic expectations leading to damaged relationships," notes one report. Pornography not only can, but is of course intended, to destroy trust and openness, two highly essential qualities in a marriage. Because it is primarily viewed in secret, pornography use often leads to deception and lying. Mates feel betrayed. They do not understand why their marriage partner no longer finds them desirable, and what's more nor does he..
Remember, as we have discussed above, the object of the exercise is the destruction of the family. How many marriage breakups and broken homes can be blamed on pornographic addiction?
At a 2003 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, two thirds of the 350 divorce lawyers who attended, said the Internet played a significant role in the divorces in the past year, with excessive interest in on-line porn contributing to more than half such cases. Pornography had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago[7]
The insistence on selfish instant gratification at all costs is inbuilt and inherent in pornography use. Hence, viewing pornography is unloving. It undercuts a true believer's fight to maintain chastity and a clean moral standing before God. Pornography exploits men, women and children. It demeans them and robs them of their dignity and rights.
The Main-Streaming Of Perversion.
Many people today are ambivalent toward pornography, because like all those other vices now prevalent in the West, it has entered the mainstream and become to a large degree, accepted practice. Modern attitudes toward pornography may be reflected by the 'prostitute-chic' fashions many celebrities sport, the music videos that increasingly flaunt sexual imagery, and the advertising media's adoption of a "porno aesthetic."
Doctors now claim that pornography can spark an addiction that is far more difficult to overcome than drug addiction. Treatment for drug addicts usually starts with detoxification to remove the substance from the body. But addiction to pornography, explains Dr. Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania, "produces mental imagery which is permanently implanted in the mind of the user and is scaled in by brain chemistry." That is why individuals can vividly recall pornographic images from years past. She concludes: "This is the first addictive substance for which there is no hope for detoxification." But does that mean it is impossible to break free from pornography's influence? And what specific harm does pornography cause?
Internet Pornography Facts:
About 75 percent of Internet pornography originates in the United States. Close to 15 percent originates in Europe.
It is estimated that some 70 million people a week visit pornographic Web sites. About 20 million of these users are in Canada and the United States.
A study revealed that during a recent one-month period, Germany had the largest audience for on-line pornography in Europe, followed by Great Britain, France, Italy, and Spain.
In Germany, Internet pornography users spend an average of 70 minutes each month viewing pornographic sites.
Among European viewers of Internet pornography, those above 50 years of age spend the most time connected to adult Web sites.
According to one source, 70 percent of Internet pornography traffic occurs during the day.
It is estimated by some that 100,000 Internet sites include material on child pornography.
About 80 percent of the Internet's commercial child pornography originates in Japan.
There is a proven connection between pornography and rape, as well as other forms of violence against women and children. Infamous serial killer Ted Bundy admits that he had a "strong appetite for violent pornography." He says: "This condition is not immediately seen by the individual or identified as a serious problem. But this interest becomes geared towards matters of a sexual nature that involve violence. I cannot emphasize enough the gradual development of this. It is not short-term."
Rather than portraying sexual relations as a beautiful and intimate expression of love between a man and a woman in honourable marriage, pornography demeans and distorts the sexual act. Casual and perverted sex is portrayed as being exciting and desirable. Personal gratification with little or no regard for the other person is highlighted. Women, men, and children are portrayed as objects that exist only for sexual gratification. "Beauty is measured by proportion of body parts, shaping unrealistic expectations," says one report. "Depicting women as anonymous, ever-wanting/waiting, empty sex toys for men, stripping and exposing their bodies for monetary gain and entertainment cannot possibly translate into a message that can exist in harmony with equality, dignity and humanity," concludes another report.
Soon, like any other improper stimulation, what initially arouses becomes mundane and routine. "Over time," says one writer, "[the users of pornography] require more explicit and deviant material. They may push their partners into increasingly bizarre sexual activities, diminishing their [own] capacity to express real affection." Does that sound like a harmless diversion?
Instead of love, pornography cultivates self-centred, selfish desire, and fractures and stains every person it contaminates. It destroys all decency and is a major threat to our traditional way of life, and particularly, marriage and family.
Pornography - A Vicious Assault On The Family.
It is a sad reality that many Internet porn viewers are children. Youngsters who though prohibited by law from purchasing pornographic literature or from renting pornographic videos, can gain access to these in their own home with a few clicks of the mouse. The choices are endless. Many children regularly visit Internet sites without their parents' knowledge. In fact, The Detroit News states that "more than two in five children have subscribed to a web site or other service online even though nearly 85 percent of parents have rules against them doing so."
Many think that a casual brush with pornography is harmless. However, the facts show otherwise. Consider the case of a couple who seemed to have an ideal marriage. They were financially secure, and they loved to travel. Their friends thought of them as close, affectionate, and devoted, and in many ways they were. However, problems arose when the husband started looking at pornography. Writing to a popular advice columnist, his anxious wife described her concerns: "When [my husband] first started to spend a lot of time on the computer in the middle of the night and early morning, he told me it was 'research.' I walked in on him one morning and caught him looking at [pornography]. He said it was only a matter of curiosity. When I took a closer look at what he was watching, it made me sick. He was embarrassed and promised to stop, and I believed he meant it. He has always been honourable—a man of his word."
This man's perverse habit has cost him his self respect, his honour, his integrity, and the respect and admiration of his wife. It has destroyed something intrinsic and wholesome within him. He has become weakened and his resolve degraded. Many men are now being lured into a similar trap; anxious to avoid discovery, they log on late at night or early in the morning. If they are caught, they often try to cover up what they are doing by lying, as this man did. Can anyone reasonably claim that a "hobby" that causes "a man of his word" to sneak around in the middle of the night and to lie to loved ones is harmless?
Pornography makes a profit out of the suffering of others, and is designed in the main to degrade and subvert the innate goodness in people, causing serious personal and family problems, to isolate, corrupt and demoralise. Many people caught up in this evil `racket,` have admitted that watching pornography has prevented them from developing close relationships with others. They don't want people around while they indulge their passion for pornography. People tend to fantasize when they watch pornography, and fantasy does not equip a person to cultivate strong relationships or to deal with life in the real world. Increasingly, we are hearing of cases where people who look at or read pornographic material even have trouble enjoying normal sexual relations with their mate. Is that conducive to good family relations? Of course not. Nor is it intended to be. Can a pastime that alienates people from those who care the most about them be truly innocuous?
We must consider God's original purpose for married people. He lovingly endowed husbands and wives with the ability to give joyous expression of their love for each other, through honourable sexual relations. Proverbs 5:18, 19 shows that these were meant to be pleasurable: "Rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in ecstasy constantly."
Note that love, not depraved animal like lust, was to be the basis for sexual relations. The person who looks at pornography is gratifying his own sexual desires—and alone, in most cases. A married man who looks at pornography may begin to view his mate as a mere object—someone who exists solely for his pleasure, or conversely, he simply loses interest in her altogether. This is far from the dignity and honour that the Creator intended men to accord women. (see 1 Peter 3:7) Such a practice that interferes with the most intimate aspects of marriage can never be viewed as desirable? Moreover, the pornographic industry, owned and controlled as it is by the Illuminati, understands only too well that what begins as a casual indulgence inevitably leads to a damaging long-term addiction. One writer observed: "Just as drug addicts require more potent drugs to receive a 'high,' consumers of pornography must have a more intense experience to achieve the same euphoric feelings as before."
That is apparently what happened to the husband mentioned earlier in this article. One evening several months after he promised to stop watching pornography, his wife returned home and found him at the computer. From his demeanour she could see that something was wrong. "[He] appeared quite nervous and upset," she wrote; "I looked at the computer, and sure enough, he had been looking at some unbelievably raunchy stuff. He said he was sincere when he promised to give it up, but he just couldn't stay away from it."
Just like narcotics, gambling, alcohol and the plethora of other vices tearing down the Christian moral fabric of our societies, pornography has been created and designed to create an immoral dependency, which destroys not only the trust and respect of loved ones, but a person's self respect and trust in himself. It is a tool of those who will dethrone all righteousness and goodness and replace it with the purest of evil.
Lucifer's Indulgence: Humankind's Scourge.
Sarah Evelyn Isobel Payne [4]was murdered by Roy William Whiting in July 2000. The subsequent investigation became a high profile murder case in the United Kingdom. Following his conviction, Whiting was imprisoned for life and is currently being held in the maximum security Wakefield prison, in West Yorkshire.
There is one fact in the disturbing history of Roy Whiting, convicted of the murder of eight year-old Sarah Payne, which has not received much attention. He had kept large quantities of pornography in his garage workshop. Indeed, there is scarcely a sex offender who has not had an acute pornography habit. In America, the FBI has reported that 81 percent of sex killers have said their biggest sexual interest lay in viewing pornography, and in compulsive masturbation. Now, no-one would suggest that pornography alone causes such men to go and commit these terrible offences; and many men who use porn lead otherwise blameless lives.
But equally, as the British sex crimes expert, Ray Wyre has observed, pornography creates a climate of thought and belief which influences attitudes towards women and children. What’s more, Wyre says, the more men masturbate to pornographic fantasies, the more likely they are to put those fantasies into practice. In other words, porn has an effect on the behaviour of those who use it. Yet many think instead it acts as a safety valve. Unlike fantasies involving violence, sexual pornography is widely thought to be harmless. More than that, `Tatler` magazine now reports that porno-chic is the new fashion statement. After all, our society now runs on sex like a car runs on petrol. TV, films, ads for everything from perfume to ice cream, are all sold on more and more explicit sex. So since sex is no longer taboo, isn’t it ridiculous to behave like Mrs Grundy over pornography?
After all, the argument goes, English culture has always been bawdy and debauched. Just think of Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale; or Shakespeare’s prostitute Doll Tearsheet; or, indeed, the pornography produced by the Victorians. Who now would ban the works of DH Lawrence, Radclyffe Hall, James Joyce or Henry Miller, all of whom were once considered obscene? Tastes change all the time, along with standards of acceptability. Pornography is a legitimate form of expression which may even do some good, say it's apologists.
Such an ostensibly sophisticated view is surely naive and self-deluding. It was fashionable in the sixties and seventies to believe that if people were freed from rules and constraints, they could be trusted to place limits on their own behaviour. But as the feminist Germaine Greer has observed, porn is nothing to do with freedom of expression. It is a ruthless industry which abuses not only those who furnish its imagery but also the men who pay for its product.
The Graphic Detail.
Today’s pornography is no longer a bit of full-frontal nudity and some explicit bumping and grinding. What was illegal merely eighteen months ago — and could only be obtained by means of a package slipped out from the back of some tacky premises — is now legally on open display in licensed sex shops and available through the internet. The spread of computers has hugely increased the availability of pornography, which can be downloaded so easily from the web. What was considered illegal material, amounted to cruelty, degradation and humiliation of women through close-ups of penetration, ejaculation and masturbation. Now such images are all legal.
The details are sordid, and will shock many. But it is surely essential that people are aware of what is being tolerated in the name of freedom of expression and of personal choice. For these legal videos do not merely show loveless, sad encounters. They dehumanise sex altogether. There is very little view of faces or indeed any part of the anatomy apart from the genital region. Women and men are reduced to pieces of hydraulic machinery. The action consists mainly of close-ups of anal and vaginal penetration, sometimes simultaneous. Sometimes the girl undergoes double penetration while practising oral sex on a third man, or with more than one man at the same time. The female genital region is always shaved to produce a disturbing simulation of a child; worse still, it is often pulled back so the camera peers right inside it. The impression that fills the screen is of a carcass being rammed in every orifice.
What’s even more revolting is that in many of these videos the men ejaculate over the girl’s face. In one, as the eight or so men she is servicing do this to her, the girl’s expression is fixed in a ghastly simulation of pleasure — but for one brief moment when she thinks the camera isn’t looking, the mask slips and you see her utter disgust and despair before she resumes her pose. We are told that such girls are consenting adults. But so what? Has our society really arrived at such a pass that if a girl is so damaged that she allows herself to be treated worse than any animal — in effect, as a thing — this is considered acceptable because she is not doing it at knife-point?
Do we not care about the terrible degradation not only of the girl, but of the men buying this material, and of our whole society? Are we all now so de-sensitised that we have somehow persuaded ourselves that tolerating such monstrousness is in our interests?
The answer is despairingly `YES.` Our societies, hearts and minds are truly in the grip of the `Wicked One.`
An Expanding Industry.
Thanks to the internet, the sheer volume of pornography has exploded. Tapping in the word ‘porn’ to one server alone brings up 24,522 sites. These legal websites feature a huge amount of anal sex. This is all about pain and contempt. ‘Watch young teens bite their lips as they get it in the ass for the first time!’ invites one site. ‘Amazing anal - the world’s nastiest site’, boasts another. Yet another promises: ‘It’s hurting time: home to extreme pain hardcore’. This displays hot wax poured onto and even pins stuck through women’s genitals, and asserts: ‘These wenches do it because they love it’, fuelling the murderous fantasy that women want to be hurt.
There’s also heavy emphasis on ‘teen sluts’. These are almost certainly older girls pretending to be children, but even so this shades into paedophilia since the pitch is the stomach-heaving fantasy that these are children who will be ’split’ open. And all this is legal. You look at these vile images and you wonder what kind of a man could possibly find pleasure or release in them. For it’s no longer just the denizens of sleazy Soho who are consumers of hard-core. It’s the banker or the teacher or the advertising executive sitting in front of his computer in his neat suburban house or up-market apartment, downloading this viciousness from the web and then going out for a nice meal with his wife or girlfriend.
These websites, however, are immensely repetitive and tedious. They invite a credit card subscription on the promise of more extreme material, but then deny access to it unless yet more money is paid. In this way they lead the man on in the hope of finding the ultimate forbidden thrill. So when this doesn’t materialise, what could be more inevitable or easy for him than to get into an internet ‘chat room’ and download illegal paedophile pictures of penetration or oral sex with a child?
The illegal stuff on video and on the web is now confined to things like paedophilia, bestiality, torture or coprophilia, which involves bodily waste products. Yet such is the slide in norms of behaviour, the police expect that in due course these taboos too will disappear. So how is all this being allowed to happen? In the UK, the law controlling pornography is the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, which outlaws any material likely to deprave or corrupt. The first problem is the subjective nature of this definition and the absence of any firm evidence of the harm such images can do.
Legal Aid.
In May 2000, a decision by the UK courts dramatically undermined the restraint the law did offer. Mr Justice Hooper turned down a legal challenge by the British Board of Film Classification, to a decision by its own appeal panel that the Board had been wrong to insist on cuts of explicit sequences before it would license a group of porn videos. As result, the BBFC had to rewrite its own guidelines, which until then had outlawed explicit penetration or ejaculation from the videos it licensed. When board members asked the public for their views, they were told - to their horror - that the public wanted to make their own decision whether or not to view such material.
The outcome was that the Board had no option but to issue revised guidelines which they feared would open the floodgates. Just as they predicted, they found themselves licensing the kind of highly disturbing pornography that had previously been illegal. Moreover, these new guidelines rapidly became a benchmark for everyone else. So porn sites on the web started to circulate equally explicit material; top shelf magazines stocked by corner newsagents, started to include equivalent pictures; and TV stations such as Channel Four and Five are now also pushing to take advantage of this shift in practice.
A Harmless Diversion?
The argument is that pornographic images don’t harm anyone as they are merely fantasies. But fantasies of what? Of hurting women? Of humiliating them? Of treating them as dehumanised objects?As the philosopher Roger Scruton argues in his book `Sexual Desire,` fantasy has a tendency to remake the world in its own image. So the ‘harmless’ porn voyeur can turn into a rapist with a gun. For his fantasy is governed by monstrous myths and illusions - that women wish to be raped, that children are waiting to be awakened to sexual pleasure, or that violence is a natural right.
Pornography objectifies women and reduces them to a commodity. Such dehumanisation affects the man’s behaviour, ranging from withdrawal of intimacy through to harsh treatment of women, to outright abuse. Dr Trevor Stammers, a GP who has often written about sexual problems, says most women he counsels whose husbands are into porn claim this has destroyed their marriages. The husband prefers to find sexual release from a computer because this doesn’t require any personal engagement by him. So he chooses physical sensation without love. ‘There is no doubt’, says Dr Stammers, ‘that as a result of using pornography such men become far more callous towards women. What they are seeking from porn is the illusion of power and control over them’.
Research studies back up the suggestion that using pornography badly affects behaviour and relationships. American academics Dolf Zillmann and Jennings Bryant have shown that pornography can diminish a person’s sexual happiness, that it damages beliefs about sexuality and attitudes towards women, and that it desensitises people to rape as a criminal offence. An American survey last year showed that more than 200,000 people were effectively addicted to porn through websites and associated chat-rooms. Victor Cline of the University of Utah has documented how men who become addicted to pornography, begin to want more explicit or deviant material, and end up acting out what they have seen.
Isn’t that to ‘deprave and corrupt’ by any reasonable understanding of those terms? Yet far from being outlawed, porn is becoming mainstream behaviour. Sado-masochism has its own fashionable clubs. In Britain, Sodomy was made legal for women when the age of homosexual consent was reduced to 16yrs; what was once considered an intolerable assault on women, from which the law should protect them, has now become their ‘right.’ And urination during sex - the ‘golden shower’– is even discussed enthusiastically in teen magazines.
Conclusion.
What we once believed righteous has been dethroned by that which we once knew to be evil. A world turned on it's head. The very mention that Christianity, or Islam, are the last bastions of virtue and morality causes the majority of people here in the West to `short circuit, ` and close down. The family unit is an endangered species. How many young men and women today even consider that a life of devotion and duty to each other, as man and wife, and to their would be offspring, as parents, is an end in itself? The whole concept of what was not so long ago taken for granted, has become somehow irrelevant and even to a degree redundant.
By gratuitously portraying immoral and lewd acts, pornography undercuts or sabotages a persons efforts to discern between what is good and what is not. It is nothing less than a loss of God! There is nothing harmless about pornography. It is exploitive and corrupting. It can and increasingly does destroy relationships, perverting the natural expression of sexual intimacy into a voyeuristic activity. It poisons the mind and spirituality of the voyeur. It promotes selfish, greedy attitudes and teaches people to view others as objects fit only to satisfy their lust. It undermines all efforts to do good and maintain a clean conscience.
Truly, pornography is Satan's scourge against mankind, and a major `siege gun` in the Illuminati's plan to dehumanise and depopulate. How far away they are from the setting up of their New World Order with it's `New Feudal` social model and reduced serf class it is hard to say. What is for certain though is that our best hope and defence against this evil scheme is our faith in God and a renewed commitment to the institutions of marriage and family.
For it is surely in these we can begin to build the `fortress` of our resistance.
Reference:
1] http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-rules-worldthe-origin-of-evil.html
2] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_depopu.htm
3] http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/index.htm
4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Whiting
5] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
6] http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr+Judith+Reisman&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPEA_enDK310
7] http://www.divorcewizards.com/Divorce-Statistics-Pornography.html
Green Shoots? Think Again.
My note: For your financial sake, don't by in to this BS green shoot economy is turning around propaganda.
NEW YORK, July 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury sold $39 billion in five-year debt on Wednesday in an auction that drew poor demand, raising worries over the cost of financing the government's burgeoning budget deficit.
Demand overall was below average, measured by the bid-to-cover ratio of 1.92, the weakest in almost a year.
In a further sign of weakness, yields at the auction were well above expectations, known as a "tail" by market participants.
A key proxy for foreign interest, the indirect bidder category, was slightly above the average of auctions over the past year at 36.6 percent but far below the most recent sale.
"It was just a horrendous result," William O'Donnell, head of U.S. Treasury strategy at RBS Securities in Greenwich Connecticut, said about the auction.
"It was the weakest bid-to-cover since September 2008, and by my numbers it was the biggest tail since February 1993. It was just a very, very weak result."
The tail indicates that dealers drove an unexpectedly hard bargain to raise yields, and lower prices, to buy the bonds, which spooked the bond market.
Five-year notes US5YT=RR fell further, last trading down 10/32, with the yield rising to a four week high around 2.66 percent.
Benchmark 10-year notes US10YT=RR surrendered their gains for the day and dropped into negative territory after the sale. They were last trading down 3/32, yielding 3.71 percent versus 3.69 percent at Tuesday's close.
The five-year sale is part of this week's record $115 billion in coupon securities being auctioned.
With the government set to issue $2 trillion in new bonds this year to finance economic and financial rescues, investors have been watching for any signs of waning demand for U.S. debt, particularly among foreigners.
Treasury auctions have come under particularly close scrutiny since investors began to question the longevity of the United States' prized AAA credit rating back in May.
Police Officers Run Backround Check on Obama Placed On Leave
Apparently Barack Hussein wants to keep all the sodomy and cocaine under wraps.
DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. -- Two DeKalb County police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after an investigation revealed they ran a background check on President Barack Obama.A representative for the DeKalb County CEO’s office identified the officers as Ryan White and C.M. Route.Officials said Obama’s name was typed into a computer inside a DeKalb County police car on July 20 and ran through the National Crime Information Center.The secret service was immediately notified and contacted the DeKalb County Police Department.A representative said both officers have been with the department less than five years.A representative said one of the officers denied involvement.An official investigation is being conducted by the DeKalb County Police Department’s Internal Affairs division.It is unclear why the officers ran a check on the president.
DEKALB COUNTY, Ga. -- Two DeKalb County police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after an investigation revealed they ran a background check on President Barack Obama.A representative for the DeKalb County CEO’s office identified the officers as Ryan White and C.M. Route.Officials said Obama’s name was typed into a computer inside a DeKalb County police car on July 20 and ran through the National Crime Information Center.The secret service was immediately notified and contacted the DeKalb County Police Department.A representative said both officers have been with the department less than five years.A representative said one of the officers denied involvement.An official investigation is being conducted by the DeKalb County Police Department’s Internal Affairs division.It is unclear why the officers ran a check on the president.
Friday, July 17, 2009
ATF Attempts to Block Tennessee Firearms Act
Apparently the ATF is unfamiliar with the 10th Amendment.......... they will be.
This is a letter from the BATFE, to gun owners in Tennesse basically saying that Federal law supersedes State law even though the Constitution says the opposite.
http://www.tfaonline.org/downloads/ATFfirearmsfreedomact.pdf
The Truth About Romans 13
by Chuck Baldwin
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).
The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose America's political leaders really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law).
The apostle clearly states that civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's command to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority--even civil authority--is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that, in America, the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office; they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, according to the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.
Furthermore, Christians, above all people, should desire that their elected representatives submit to the Constitution, because it is constitutional government that has done more to protect Christian liberty than any other governing document ever devised by man. As I have noted before in this column, Biblical principles and Natural Law form the foundation of all three of America's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
(See: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050630.html)
As a result, Christians in America (for the most part) have not had to face the painful decision to "obey God rather than men" and defy their civil authorities.
The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore--and blatantly disobey--the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution.
Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?
Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
UK Behind DDoS Attacks Not North Korea
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/1715252/UK-Not-North-Korea-Is-Source-of-DDoS-Attacks?art_pos=8
"The UK was the likely source of a series of attacks last week that took down popular Web sites in the US and South Korea, according to an analysis performed by a Vietnamese computer security researcher. The results contradict assertions made by some in the US and South Korean governments that North Korea was behind the attack. Security analysts had been skeptical of the claims, which were reportedly made in off-the-record briefings and for which proof was never delivered." The Vietnamese security site's blog is linked from the article, but it is very slow even before Slashdotting. The researchers observed 166,908 zombies participating in the attacks — a number far larger than most earlier estimates.
Update: 07/14 21:24 GMT by KD : Wired is reporting that the UK owner of the IP address in question is pointing a finger at a server in Florida, which it says opened a VPN to the UK machine for the attacks. Once again, the attacker could be anywhere.
"The UK was the likely source of a series of attacks last week that took down popular Web sites in the US and South Korea, according to an analysis performed by a Vietnamese computer security researcher. The results contradict assertions made by some in the US and South Korean governments that North Korea was behind the attack. Security analysts had been skeptical of the claims, which were reportedly made in off-the-record briefings and for which proof was never delivered." The Vietnamese security site's blog is linked from the article, but it is very slow even before Slashdotting. The researchers observed 166,908 zombies participating in the attacks — a number far larger than most earlier estimates.
Update: 07/14 21:24 GMT by KD : Wired is reporting that the UK owner of the IP address in question is pointing a finger at a server in Florida, which it says opened a VPN to the UK machine for the attacks. Once again, the attacker could be anywhere.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
3 Exciting Candidates
During such troubling times as we currently find ourselves in, when Marxism is gaining ground at an unprecedented and unchecked pace, it is important to look for the positives. Although admittedly in my eyes they are few and far between, we still have to rally around them. The following three candidates for Congress are all great men with years of dedicated service to the preservation of the Constitution. If you are looking for a way to rescue our nation from the grip of communism please support these candidates. In no particular order they are
Dr. Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Adam Kokesh
Dr. Rand Paul
Peter Schiff
Adam Kokesh
Wal-Mart Backs Obama Health Plan
My note: I have been an outspoken supporter of Wal-Mart for many years. I have always come to Wal-Mart's defense whenever I hear anyone say something negative about them. I defended Wal-Mart because it is the epitome of the endless possibilities of a free market system, and a testament to Sam Walton's vision and hard work. If you haven't read his biography Made In America I highly recommend that you do.
However Wal-Mart has caved to the grip of Marxism, something that I can never forgive. I want this to be a public notice that I will never defend Wal-Mart again. On the outside this may seem like a trivial statement since this site only receives 100 visits per day on average, but in my mind it is a major decision, since as stated above I have always stuck my neck out and defended Wal-Mart on many occasions whether it be to disgruntled employee's in the store, people online, or random acquaintances. Sam Walton is someone I have always had a deep admiration for and I am very saddened for his sake and the sake of our nation to see the direction in which his company is headed.
By John Carlisle
In a June 30 letter to the White House, Wal-Mart endorsed Obama's health care plan. The letter was jointly signed by Andrew Stern, boss of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and John Podesta, who led the Obama transition team and is chief executive of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
However Wal-Mart has caved to the grip of Marxism, something that I can never forgive. I want this to be a public notice that I will never defend Wal-Mart again. On the outside this may seem like a trivial statement since this site only receives 100 visits per day on average, but in my mind it is a major decision, since as stated above I have always stuck my neck out and defended Wal-Mart on many occasions whether it be to disgruntled employee's in the store, people online, or random acquaintances. Sam Walton is someone I have always had a deep admiration for and I am very saddened for his sake and the sake of our nation to see the direction in which his company is headed.
By John Carlisle
In a June 30 letter to the White House, Wal-Mart endorsed Obama's health care plan. The letter was jointly signed by Andrew Stern, boss of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and John Podesta, who led the Obama transition team and is chief executive of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
Although the move was unexpected to some, it was no surprise to NLPC. In a Special Report published in 2006 and updated in 2008, I chronicled the company's move to the Left in a futile campaign to placate liberal critics like Wal-Mart Watch, funded by SEIU. On major issues except for "card check," Wal-Mart has become a powerful tool of liberal activist groups.
Obama's plan includes an employer mandate to vastly increase government control over health care ostensibly to provide coverage to 46 million uninsured Americans. Wal-Mart's support represents a betrayal of the large segment of the business community opposed to the plan, not to mention a betrayal of the free-market principles that made Wal-Mart great.
The letter from Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke was personally delivered by Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart's executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Dach is a veteran Democratic political operative, who once worked for President Bill Clinton, whom Wal-Mart hired in 2006 as part of the company's ill-conceived campaign to tame its critics.
Wal-Mart's collaboration with its union enemies on health care is not new. On February 7, 2007, then Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott held a joint press conference with Stern where he announced the retailer's support for the labor movement's longtime goal to create a government-run system of universal health coverage. It did no good. Unions continued to fund multi-million dollar campaigns attacking Wal-Mart.
Although Scott stepped down as company CEO in February 2009, he still plays a significant role in the company as chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors.
Wal-Mart has now thoroughly rejected the brilliant entrepreneurial legacy of its founder Sam Walton. Wal-Mart was once hailed as a hero by numerous free market advocates for its success and initial decision to stand up to union bullying. Now, it has joined the ranks of General Motors, Citigroup, AIG and other corporate sellouts to peddle the dangerous expansion of government power sought by the Obama Administration.
Wal-Mart's betrayal sent shock waves through the business community. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says an employer mandate would force companies to cut jobs, lower wages and drive many out of business.
The National Retail Federation, the main lobby for the industry, said it was "flabbergasted" by Wal-Mart's decision. "We have been one of the foremost opponents to employer mandates, said Neil Trautwein, vice president of the trade group. "We are surprised and disappointed by Wal-Mart's choice to embrace an employer mandate in exchange for a promise of cost savings." Trautwein added that the employer mandate is "the single most destructive thing you could do to the health care system shy of a single-payer system...[and] would quite possibly cut off the economic recovery we all desperately need."
In a February 9, 2007 interview on the Fox News show, "Your World With Neil Cavuto," I summed up the problem:
Wal-Mart just doesn't get it. They don't understand that there's no way that you can appease the Left. These people are ideologues. They're anti-free market, they're pro regulation and there's no way you can cave in to their agenda.
Wal-Mart may foolishly believe it is buying peace from Stern and the union bosses. In fact, the company is setting itself up for an even more relentless assault by the Left who now realize it will sell out its friends. The real tragedy is that in jumping on Obama's nationalization bandwagon, Wal-Mart may be jeopardizing not just itself but America's economic future.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The Abolition of the White Race
Abolish the White race, sounds crazy right? Well that is exactly what a Jewish Marxist Harvard Professor advocates.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Congress Passes New Hate Crime Legislation
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, July 6, 2009
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.
Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.
The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”
The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”
The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.
Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.
The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”
The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”
The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Toyota: America's Car Company
My note: To hell with the unionized Big 3 who have the audacity to beg the Federal Government to steal from it's citizenry just so they can continue to pay ludicrous wages to the marxists union leaders. I can't wait for them to go under and all those unionized marxist assholes can be unemployed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/toyot...company-2009-7
A new study from Cars.com sheds light on the absurdity of thinking cars have a "nationality."
When you consider that even a post-bailout GM will expand its use of foreign labor, it shouldn't be that hard to understand how an "American" car isn't really so, just because its maker was founded in Detroit.
And more generally, there seems to be little reason to think that American cars are really more American in any metrics that matter: Namely, labor and parts inputs.
According to the new survey, the most American car in America is the Toyota Camry, containing the highest percentage of American inputs, even surpassing the Ford F-150. Actually, Toyota utterly dominates the top 10 list, with a Honda thrown in for good measure.
Now some might object to this, saying that even though these cars are "made-in-America", the value still flows overseas, but really, even that's not right. Toyota still pays taxes in America. Its stock is traded in the US, and is no doubt owned by individual retail accounts and mutual funds.
If you insist on coming up with some definition of "American" that limits that moniker to the Big Three, we suppose it's this: Only Chrysler, Ford and GM have the political clout to win a bailout if needed. We really can't imagine Toyota or Honda receiving so much political support. Of course, this is a circular definition that still doesn't say much, but it's the best you can do.
http://www.businessinsider.com/toyot...company-2009-7
A new study from Cars.com sheds light on the absurdity of thinking cars have a "nationality."
When you consider that even a post-bailout GM will expand its use of foreign labor, it shouldn't be that hard to understand how an "American" car isn't really so, just because its maker was founded in Detroit.
And more generally, there seems to be little reason to think that American cars are really more American in any metrics that matter: Namely, labor and parts inputs.
According to the new survey, the most American car in America is the Toyota Camry, containing the highest percentage of American inputs, even surpassing the Ford F-150. Actually, Toyota utterly dominates the top 10 list, with a Honda thrown in for good measure.
Now some might object to this, saying that even though these cars are "made-in-America", the value still flows overseas, but really, even that's not right. Toyota still pays taxes in America. Its stock is traded in the US, and is no doubt owned by individual retail accounts and mutual funds.
If you insist on coming up with some definition of "American" that limits that moniker to the Big Three, we suppose it's this: Only Chrysler, Ford and GM have the political clout to win a bailout if needed. We really can't imagine Toyota or Honda receiving so much political support. Of course, this is a circular definition that still doesn't say much, but it's the best you can do.
Free Hal Turner
A website has been started dedicated to raising awareness of the Hal Turner case, the url is
http://free-hal-turner.blogspot.com/
Please spread this to your friends and family, we aren't fighting just for Hal we are fighting for our Constitution.
http://free-hal-turner.blogspot.com/
Please spread this to your friends and family, we aren't fighting just for Hal we are fighting for our Constitution.
Huffington Post Defends Hal Turner
I will be the first to admit that 99% or more of the time I don't agree with what is on Huffington Post, however this article might be somewhat of an exception. It is an article on Hal's case from a 1st Amendment lawyer, who although doesn't defend Hal himself does think he is protected under our Constitution. It is a decent read if you are interested in this landmark case.
Murder Threats and The First Amendment
Murder Threats and The First Amendment
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Japanese Bond Smugglers Released!
I reiterate that this should be the TOP story on every news station across the globe. 2 Japanese men that were trying to cash 135 BILLION worth of Japanese US held debt, have now been released! Either scenario isn't good.
1. The bonds were fake, but then why did 2 counter fitters get released from custody and nobody seems to know where they are?
2. Which happens to be what I think is the truth, the bonds were very real and the Japanese government is so worried about the imminent collapse of the American financial system and the onslaught of hyper inflation that they wanted to cash these in secret.
http://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/MessageDetail.aspx?s=MAI&t=list&m=27235840&l=0&pd=0&r=0
If you want to see all other Truth In Our Time stories related to this international incident click here or the Japanese Bond tag under this post.
1. The bonds were fake, but then why did 2 counter fitters get released from custody and nobody seems to know where they are?
2. Which happens to be what I think is the truth, the bonds were very real and the Japanese government is so worried about the imminent collapse of the American financial system and the onslaught of hyper inflation that they wanted to cash these in secret.
http://www.stockhouse.com/Bullboards/MessageDetail.aspx?s=MAI&t=list&m=27235840&l=0&pd=0&r=0
If you want to see all other Truth In Our Time stories related to this international incident click here or the Japanese Bond tag under this post.
Bizzarre Updates on the Japanese Bond Story
All evidence shows they are real!
Milan (AsiaNews) – Four weeks have passed since American bonds were confiscated from two Japanese who were travelling on a direct train to Chiasso, Switzerland, and while there has been clarification of some points, very few, Italian authorities have remained silent on the rest of the episode.
In addition, a strange coincidence in the timing of the arrest of a director of an internet radio who had made revelations regarding the incident increases the already strong oddities surrounding the case. This added to the revaluation of the fact that among the evidence seized there were "Kennedy Bond" all points toward the authenticity of the items seized by the Guardia di Finanza (GdF) in early June.
The major English-speaking newspapers ignored the story for a couple of weeks. They only started to report on it after the Bloomberg agency carried a story on 18 / 6, in which a spokesman for the Treasury, Meyerhardt, declared that the bonds, based on photos available on the Internet, were "clearly false." The same day, the Financial Times (FT) published an article whose title laid the blame for the (alleged) infringement at the feet of the Italian Mafia, despite the fact that the article failed to make even one possible connection with the episode in Chiasso. Nevertheless, the version of events as reported in FT was taken up by others as being "appropriate" (given that it is a very common cliché about Italy and it is a sequester that took place in Italy) and in the end "colourful." It’s a pity that it goes against all logic: that the Mafia tried to pass unnoticed in its attempt to dump fake bonds amounting to 134.5 billion dollars and moreover were to "stung" a mere step from their gaol, is not very credible.
Most recently last week, 25 / 6, the New York Times reported on the story in particular, the allegations of CIA spokesman, Darrin Blackford: the U.S. Secret Service carried out inspections, as required by the Italian judiciary, and found that they were fictitious financial instruments, never issued by the “U.S. government”. It is not clear, however, how the checks mentioned Blackford were carried out and whether they were also are carried out via internet. According to official Italian sources, in fact, the Commission of American experts, expected in Italy, have yet to arrive. Furthermore, the bonds were accompanied by a recent and original bank record. It is therefore unclear how the U.S. authorities can declare fake documentation that does not originate from the Fed or the U.S. Department of Treasury.
On the contrary, claims in support of the bond’s authenticity were made 20 / 6 on the Turner Radio Network (TRN), an independent radio station broadcast via Internet. On that date in a massive exposure, TRN stated that the two Japanese arrested by the Guardia di Finanza (GdF) and then released in Ponte Chiasso were employees of the Japanese Ministry for Treasury. AsiaNews had also received similar reports: one of the two Japanese arrested in Chiasso and then released is Tuneo Yamauchi, brother of Toshiro Muto, until recently vice governor of the Bank of Japan. On its website, the creator and presenter of Radio, Hal Turner, had also claimed that his sources had revealed that the Italian authorities believe the evidence to be authentic and that the two Japanese officials are from the Japanese Ministry for Finance. They were supposed to bring the bonds to Switzerland because the Japanese government had apparently lost confidence in U.S. ability to repay its debt. Japanese financial authorities therefore were trying to sell a part of the securities in their possession through parallel channels ahead of an imminent financial disaster, thanks to the anonymity which, Turner said, is guaranteed by the laws of Switzerland.
AsiaNews does not know to what extent Turner’s revelations can be held as credible, given that in this case too, it is difficult to believe that $ 134.5 billion would pass unnoticed anywhere in the world. It seems far more logical to assume that the bonds, if authentic, were directed to the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, BIS, the central bank of central banks ahead of the issuance of securities in a new supranational currency. Turner had in any event added that as evidence of his support of his revelations he would have provided the serial numbers of the seized bonds. Before it could do so, however, was imprisoned. Hal Turner is the journalist who long ago first broke the news of a secret plan to replace the dollar, after a severe financial crisis, with a common North American currency, the Amero. In a dramatic phone call from inside the prison in which he is detained pending trial, relayed via internet, Hal Turner claims that his arrest is political and it is in relation to securities seized in Chiasso, because the authorities are terrorized by his revelations regarding the bonds’ authenticity. Of course, the allegations made against him have to nothing to do with the story and thus an already intricate story becomes increasingly complex. Turner maintains that he did not personally formulate the disclosure for which he has been imprisoned. Although it was clearly his responsibility to remain vigilant, it is also true that blogs from around the world and the U.S. themselves are full of threats and provocations. The coincidental timing, the unusual diligence and the details of his arrest arouse suspicions about the true motives of the American federal police. Indeed, this very arrest suggests that the evidence seized from GdF are truly authentic.
One more element in favour of the bond’s authenticity is found in the securities, which in the June 4 statement, the GdF termed "Kennedy Bonds” with photos provided. These photos reveal that the securities under discussion are not bonds but Treasury Notes, because they are securities that can be immediately exchanged for their worth in goods or services and because they are devoid of interest coupons. One side carries a reproduction of the image of the American president, the reverse side that of a spaceship. From confidential, usually well-informed sources, AsiaNews has learned that this type of paper money was issued less than ten years ago (in 1998), although it is difficult to know whether those seized in Chiasso are authentic. But the fact that the release of this particular State Treasury was not completely in the public domain tends to exclude the possibility of counterfeiting. It highly unreasonable to suppose that a forger would reproduce a State Treasury not commonly in circulation and of which there is no public knowledge. For this reason, it can be concluded that the 124.5 billion dollars divided in 249 bonds of 500 million each are authentic. These titles, although referred to as "Federal Reserve Notes" are actually bonds, because they accrue interest and are redeemable at maturity. But one question remains unsolved regarding them. It is somewhat hard to understand why the securities, which were from the outset indistinguishable from the original to the GdF, all have their coupons. Any ordinary investor, even a state, would have cashed in the interest coupon every year, so as not to lose purchasing power.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15648&size=A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)