Tag Archives: Al Gore

Bill Lockwood: The Left: A Coven of Neo-Canaanites

by Bill Lockwood

Nothing more clearly demonstrates the pagan religious orientation of the left than the recent effort by Democrats to begin turning our entire economy Greenward as their input into the recent COVID-19 stimulus package. According to Jeff Brady of NPR, “Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change.” To Democrats, the Corona Virus pandemic is not about helping the American people—it is about fundamentally transforming the American economy. 

For example, eight Democratic U.S. senators also called upon fellow lawmakers, according to NPR news, to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.” According to Michael Greenstone, who served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “We can both stimulate the economy … and we can lay the foundation for a lower-carbon future.”

Environmental Paganism

The Green Agenda, sponsored by all socialists and Democrats, is not about science. It is more nearly akin to a paganistic religious belief which jettisons real science in favor of doctrine. Like the Canaanite paganism of the Old Testament which involved itself in nature-worship and sacrificing in “sacred groves”, the New Green Deal advocates root themselves in a false ideology.

In what was called the “Eco-shot heard ‘round the world,” Berkeley historian Lynn White, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science over 30 years ago, frankly admitted that the source of our environmental “crisis” was the “victory of Christianity over paganism.” Plainly siding with ancient Canaanite paganism, he went on to say that “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of detachment to the feelings of natural objects …Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” He went on to predict that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion.” 

Note carefully the Environmental Activists were sounding apocalyptic alarms over 30 years ago. They haven’t changed. Noteworthy it is as well that it is all about religion.

The same thing is true according to Green Grandfather Al Gore. His infamous book Earth in the Balance made a frontal attack on the Genesis account of creation by re-writing the entire first few chapters of Moses’ account. The end result was a complete VALUE SHIFT from a human-centered world view to what the Clinton Administration called A Biocentric Worldview. This tells us that humans are seen as merely another species inhabiting a democratic “ecosystem.” No more value a human being than a bug.

Steven C. Rockefeller of Middlebury College, a theology professor and environmentalist, explains: “In a biocentric approach, the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and eco-systems rather than simply the basis for their utilitarian value or benefit to humans.”

This biocentric approach was formally adopted by the Clinton Administration. Alton Chase, in his book In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, describes the new faith of the elite, as it sprang to life in the Clinton Administration. “The Administration, under the rubric of ‘reinventing government’ … adopted biocentrism as the guiding philosophy of all federal land management.”

Recent COP25 Conference

In December of last year the United Nations sponsored a COP25 conference in Madrid, Spain. Attendee Alex Newman writes that the “cult-like nature of climatism was on full display.” An alternative conference occurred in Madrid which was totally ignored by the Main Stream Media. It was called “Climate Reality Conference” hosted by a coalition of environmental groups that reject climate alarmism, including The Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

The Climate Reality Conference featured numerous scientific experts which totally debunked the UN Global Alarmists. But what is particularly interesting is that a number of these world-class scientists likened the Green Agenda to so much religious propaganda.

William Happer, for instance, an international renowned Princeton physicist, put it plainly. “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen has frequently referred to the Global Warming crowd as a “cult” because they refuse to change their beliefs in response to evidence and proof. (See Alex Newman, “Dangerous Climate ‘Cult’ Ignores Science,” in The New American, 2-17-20).

Lindzen even stated it this way in a 2015 radio interview: “Think about it: You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Dr. Ivstan Marko, a chemistry professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and head of the European Chemical Society, told The New American magazine that “the climate cult had perverted Christianity to develop its dangerous theology. Instead of repenting of sins, climate cultists want you to believe that you must repent of your ‘carbon footprint.’”

“It’s a new religion going on,” Marko explained. Many other top scientists and political leaders are also calling the Green Agenda pushed by Democrats and soft-shelled Republicans a religion. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott as well as Eco-activist Stuart Scott have so likened it.

The entire Green debate illustrates the throes of a religious conflict occurring in America. Unless enough American Christians, oriented and educated sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures to combat the growing forms of ancient Canaanite religious beliefs, engage in the cultural wars, America has seen its better days.

Alex Newman: School Children Terrorized About Death from “Climate Change”

by Alex Newman

MADRID — Inmates at government schools in Canada and beyond are being absolutely terrorized with “climate” alarmism, to the point that some of them were convinced that they will die in just 8 years unless the United Nations is given more power and money. Scientists have compared the tactics and hysteria to those used by cults and dictators.

The poor children were absolutely terrified. “We are gonna die! I don’t want to die!” screamed one little child during a propaganda session on “climate” forced on 2nd and 3rd graders at a public school in Toronto. A concerned parent who reached out to FreedomProject Media about the scandal, Lejla Blazevik, said her 8-year-old daughter told her the rest of the class had joined in, too.

Her own daughter, Joylaea Blazevic, got home from school after the indoctrination and recounted what happened at school that day: “She’s like: ‘Mommy, they said that we’re going to die in eight years.’” Even believers in the man-made global-warming hypothesis, including child psychologists, told media outlets reporting on the traumatic incident that it was “inappropriate.”

Among other things, the video featured Swedish girl Greta Thunberg scolding adults. The video included the now-infamous remarks: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” After that, a clock counting down 8 years was shown to the students, causing panic.

Ms. Blazevic vowed not to give up in this fight. “Again, my concern is for the 7- and 8-year-old children in this grade 2nd and 3rd class who may still believe that they’re going to die,” the mother told The Newman Report in an email before the story became an international scandal following an article in Canada’s National Post. “Also, the parents of these children need to be notified.”

School officials have issued contradictory responses to the scandal, ranging from denying and downplaying it, to apologizing and claiming it was for the children’s own good. On several occasions, according to emails obtained by The Newman Report, administrators claimed that it was just one student who yelled about dying. School officials also later claimed that the student in question had a habit of shouting that.

But not according to Ms. Blazevik, who wondered which of the contradictory statements by school officials were lies. “It was most of the children in the class who exclaimed ‘I don’t wanna die’ and not only one child,” she told The Newman Report. Indeed, the concerned mother spoke to a 7-year-old girl from her daughter’s class in front of that girl’s father, “and she said that she was happy that she’s going to die soon because that meant that she didn’t need to get married,” Blazevic recounted.

School officials also later claimed that students were “debriefed” and that the “nerves” of the children were “likely calmed” by re-assurances that they would not die from supposed man-made warming in 8 years. “My daughter is the best student in class, she attends school regularly and she is sure that the class was never corrected, not even on that day, during the presentation,” Blazevic said, expressing concerns that government-school employees were misleading parents and students.

School officials claimed the purpose of the propaganda video was actually to help the children to “resolve” the supposed problem of man-made climate doom. “Once again, we regret the impact the video and clock had on Joylea,” Prinipal Michael George told Blazevic in an e-mail obtained by FreedomProject Media. “Our intent is always to create critical thinkers & problem solvers with a perspective of contributing to the well-being of our global community.”

Meanwhile, in Germany, outraged citizens protested after the state-broadcaster showed video footage of young school children being taught to sing that their grandmothers are “pigs” for eating meat and driving gasoline-powered cars. “Every day my grandma fries herself a pork chop,” the seemingly happy children sing. “She does it because discount meat costs nearly nothing, my grandma is an old environmental pig!”

All over the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit in Madrid in December, meanwhile, brainwashed children ran around screaming about the alleged need to dismantle free markets, patriarchy, the economy, Western civilization, and more. They also demanded that the UN loot Western taxpayers, ban airplanes and “fossil fuels,” restrict meat consumption, and much more.

Leading scientists in Madrid, such as Princeton physicist and Trump advisor Dr. William Happer, warned that this was the behavior of a dangerous “cult.” “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end,” said Happer, who added that the UN and governments were “wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.”

Clearly, though, the children are being prepared for something big. Former Vice President and discredited “climate” guru Al Gore, for instance, was quoted in the UN’s propaganda book “Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21” calling for a “worldwide monitoring system staffed by children … designed to rescue the global environment.”

THE TAKEAWAY

The mass-murdering totalitarian regimes of the 20th century such as those of National Socialist (Nazi) Adolf Hitler and Chinese Communist butcher Mao Tse-Tung relied on remarkably similar tactics to those now being deployed against Western children. With a combination of fear-mongering, indoctrination, and propaganda, these savage regimes drove a wedge between parents and their children, turning the children against their families to facilitate the destruction of liberty.

The results were deadly and catastrophic. Indeed, those tyrants collectively slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and enslaved billions more. It is time for parents to step in and put a stop to it — now — before it gets too far out of hand.

TNR: https://freedomproject.com/the-newman-report/1285-school-children-terrorized-about-death-from-climate-change


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Alex Newman: UN Speakers Push Population Reduction for “Climate Emergency”

by Alex Newman

MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.

The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.

What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.

A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.

The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.

“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.

Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.

When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.

In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”

A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.

Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.

Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”

But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”

Asked about whether the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency tasked with population control, was doing an adequate job, he responded: “I can’t comment on that because I’m not well enough informed.” According to congressional testimony, the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood have worked with Beijing on perpetrating forced abortions.

Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.

While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.

This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.

Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.

However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.

The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away. 

Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.

During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.

The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34329-un-speakers-push-population-reduction-for-climate-emergency


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Kathleen Marquardt: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING AND WATER IS FOR FIGHTING

by Kathleen Marquardt

If whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, as Mark Twain famously said, then the 2015 Montana Legislature affirmed the truismTristan Scott, Flathead Beacon

In the mid-90s, before the Internet, the U.S. government held a meeting via satellite link between Washington, D.C., and cities and towns across western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Oregon. The subject was the Columbia River Basin.

I was living in Helena, Montana. The meeting was held in a school or some building like a school on a Saturday morning. The room had about a dozen round tables with six chairs each, and we all watched the presentation on a screen. In attendance were the press, people from farming and Ag organizations, local officials and others like me – wanting to know what was afoot.  After the viewing, we had one of those infamous consensus meetings.

The major point of that meeting was that the Columbia River Basin needed to be returned to the state it was before Columbus. In unspoken words, NO WHITE MAN. But a lot more was presented to drown that in political gobbledygook.

Understandably, the global elite want that area to be re-wilded, to be part of the Wildlands Project. But at this meeting/Charrette, they let us know that they would start by removing only the non-indigenous peoples. Plus dams – dams gotta go.

Now, some 25 years later, we are seeing exactly how this is being accomplished via the western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project – the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Montana water compact.

The fact is, the CSKT Compact has nothing to do with water rights, Indians, culture, fish, or the environment.  It is all about money for a small group of tribal elite and state officials who covet more power, political positions, and power over others. It seeks revenge for spiteCatherine Vandemoer, Ph.D., Sovereign Nation

I have been trying  to put together a short-ish synopsis of the machinations over the CSKT compact. But the backstory is that the feds are using the treaty to bring about the unlawful expansion of the tribal government authority over Non-Indians. “This compact proposes that the State of Montana expand the authority and jurisdiction of tribal governments over non-members and non-Indians where federal law has specifically prohibited it. People, the Montana legislature does not have the authority to remove constitutional provisions and statutory protections from its citizens,  . . .” [1] ,  On top of this, the CSKT Compact, is an attempt to create a new type of federal water right “ . . .using the wording from the Hellgate Treaty that states that the tribes have a right to take fish. And from those simple words that even a horse trainer can understand, the proponents of this compact would like us to believe that the right to take fish, equates to an aboriginal, time immemorial, tribal reserved, federal water right. Again, they are asking the Montana State legislature to conjure up…and I do mean conjure up… a federal water right where currently one does not exist. We simply do not have that authority.” [2]

The compact between Montana, the federal government, and the tribes is so complicated that the fur has been flying for well over a hundred years, and recently, another 1,000+-page compact has been written. I suggest you go to Western Water Rights and watch the video of the Perfect Storm for the full story from the first tribal agreement. It is extremely well laid out.

But here is the dirty, rotten, nasty underbelly of this whole Machiavellian plot. Remember how Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by President George H.W. Bush, but never ratified by Congress? Actually, never even brought up in Congress. Yet, instead, President Clinton put V.P. Al Gore in charge of using the President’s Commission on Sustainable Development to embed all the aspects of Sustainable Development into every department of the federal government.

That same tactic is being used here. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.  Chair, Montana Land and Water Alliance, out of Polson, Montana, wrote me that, “ . . . the state is implementing the CSKT Compact without Congressional approval both on and off the reservation by:

On Reservation—State, BIA, and Tribes implementing CSKT Compact in a federal irrigation project without Congressional approval

State and BIA participating in planning, possible design, funding of projects associated with compact water management plans, including measuring devices, headgate operations,

Tribes aggressively implementing and directing a compliant BIA  how to manage storage and reservoir levels, instream flows, and canal deliveries  according to plans specified in the CSKT Compact appendices which affects water delivery to irrigation and stock,  and violates US-irrigation district contracts.

There is an existing federal operations plan that has not been followed since 2014 because they have been implementing

Off-reservation—State implementing Milltown Dam water right

The compact calls for CSKT “co-ownership” of the water flow from the Milltown Dam water right on the Clark Fork River, and thus “splits” the water right between two tributaries to protect instream flow.

The state had planned to implement this with or without the Compact, but with the Compact they didn’t have to go through their regular permitting process to achieve that transfer of use and point of diversion.

Congress has not approved the compact yet the state water right abstract for Milltown dam listed the co-ownership and compact-related conditions

In 2017 our organization wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) to point out that the compact hadn’t been approved and the abstract was in error, and to inquire as to whether the state was going to go through its regular process

After getting a nasty response, the state changed the abstract to list them as full owner, but indicated as soon as compact passed would be co-ownership.

However, they are implementing that right now without having completed the state process for a change in the use and place of use of the water, which was required without the compact.

You don’t have to understand all those terms, you just need to understand that this project is be embedded into state, tribal, and local governments without Congressional approval, and probably without Congress knowing it is being done. Plus, this is not just about Montana waters, it will have a most destructive affect on all western waters.

The furthest west hatched lines designate the Flathead Indian Reservation Article II Treaty of Hellgate. The green area is what this new compact is turning over to that small reservation to have full control over the waters.

The compact begins with an incorrect definition of the reservation that paves the way for the expansive taking of water within reservation boundaries:  all land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the Reservation.”   

This flawed premise is used to rationalize giving all water running through and under the reservation to the CSKT.

Additionally the compact gives the federal government time immemorial water rights for every drop of water in Flathead Lake, and concedes significant instream flows with various priority dates throughout 11 counties in western Montana in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins.

This is a water grab (which becomes a land grab, because you can’t use land that doesn’t have water) the size no one has seen before outside the USSR. Those Americans who think that this has no relevance to them, better think twice – at least. This is not the beginning of the taking of water rights in this country; it is happening all over in various tactics and schemes. But it is the biggest. And it has been in the works for at least 30 years.

You can think, oh well, that’s in Montana; it won’t bother me. I am in Ohio, or Arizona. Understand, this is just the first place – sort of a testing ground. And, no, they don’t need Indian reservations to stage the take-over of water rights. We cannot survive without water so, if you haven’t stood up for your rights before, start now. Whiskey may be for drinking, but let’s see you survive long without water.

[1] Theresa Manzella, member of Montana State House of Representatives, “My testimony to the Montana House on the CSKT Water Compact.

[2] Ibid.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/11/25/whiskey-is-for-drinking-and-water-is-for-fighting/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Too Big to Indict?

 Too Big to Indict? –“…Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received an infusion of illegal Chinese cash to the tune of millions of dollars.”

by Bill Lockwood

By now Americans are familiar with the organized Criminal Syndicate known as the Clinton Machine. Led by Bill Clinton in the 1990’s, the Democrat President committed bribery and “high crimes” in what became known as “Chinagate.” The Main Stream Media did their best to cover for the Democrats by pretending that Clinton’s impeachment was all about “sex.” Today, once-again with zealot-like assistance from a fraudulent media, Hillary has expanded Chinagate to world-wide corruption and obstruction of justice as she positions herself for the White House.

Chinagate

Lest we forget, the “Chinagate” fundraising scandal of 1996 included Hillary. Some have labeled it the “most serious scandal in U.S. history.” It amounted to the sell-out of America’s national security to Communist China in exchange for millions of dollars contributed to the 1996 Clinton-Gore re-election effort.

Highlights were outlined in an explosive book entitled Year of the Rat. It was written by two Republican Capitol Hill staffers Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II who had extensive investigative experience and had worked in national security.

They factually demonstrate that Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign received an infusion of illegal Chinese cash to the tune of millions of dollars. This transfer went through an Arkansas Bank controlled by the Riady family in Indonesia. Actually, in both of Clinton’s elections to President he received huge sums of illegal cash.

Bear in mind that the illegal Chinese contributions Clinton-Gore campaign derived primarily from illicit Chinese activities, including prostitution. Clinton’s White House thereafter became a revolving door for agents of the Chinese army and the Chinese Communist Party.

In the succeeding scandal, Clinton friend Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie pleaded guilty of violation campaign finance laws. Democratic donor Johnny Chung received $150,000 from the Bank of China 3 days prior to Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff receiving a $50,000 from Chung. When the Department of Justice investigated, about 120 people connected to Chinagate either fled the country or pleaded the 5th Amendment instead of testifying.

Hillarygate

All of the above should sound eerily familiar, for the story is unfolding once again in front of our eyes with Hillary Clinton herself. Infusions of foreign cash; staffers that plead the 5th; power-broking at the citizens’ expense; and an orgy of lies to cover their tracks.

Jerome Corsi has authored a brand new book that exposes the current operations of the Clinton Crime Machine. This time attention is focused upon the Clinton Foundation. Partners in Crime details how this Foundation has fraudulently received hundreds of millions of dollars for the personal enrichment of the Clinton’s themselves. Sources now tell us that only 6% of those funds were actually used for “charitable” work, the ostensible purpose of the Foundation.

Alex Newman reviews that “Perhaps the most troubling section of the book is the ‘State Department Scam,’ which outlines some of the ways in which the Clintons sold out America in exchange for ‘speaking fees’ to Bill and ‘donations’ to their family criminal enterprise. While occupying the secretary of state position, Hillary ‘used the office for Clinton family profit, continuing throughout her term to actively coordinate with Clinton Foundation principals.’”

As we are now learning on a daily basis, while Hillary ran Obama’s State Department she continued to use a private server in purposeful violation and defiance of Federal Law. This was under the complete and total oversight of the President himself who communicated with her on the same server, using an alias so as not to be detected by a snooping conservative media. Then, using his well-known modus operandi, Obama lied again to the American people about his knowledge of her private server.

Chinagate is being replayed all over again and we suppose Obama himself, if asked in Court about his avowals that he knew nothing of Hillary’s private server, would invoke the infamous dodge by questioning what “is” is. With the State Department, Department of Justice, and the White House all in collusion, the question now becomes: Is Hillary is “too big to indict?”

Bill Lockwood: The Earth is the Lord’s

The Earth is the Lord’s & the Fullness Thereof- “Landmarks were regarded as sacred among other nations besides Israel. Romans, for example, enacted the death penalty against those who removed them. “

by Bill Lockwood

Tucked away in an unexpected passage dealing with “meat sacrificed to idols” the inspired apostle Paul underscored the fact that the earth was created by God, and for man. The natural conclusions that flow from his short statement are as profound as they are apropos to the current cultural scene in America.

First, the Context. At issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23ff is whether or not a Christian living in Corinth may purchase meat from an open-air marketplace, called in the first-century a “Makellon,” and consume it—with the possibility that that meat may have been butchered by a pagan priest and offered to an idol. Answering that question in the affirmative, the apostle of God then gives the reason for it: “for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”

This quotation Paul takes from Psalm 24:1 and means simply that all the food and provision with which the earth has been filled has been filled by God for man’s usage. “The fruit and products of the earth were designed by God, the Great Proprietor, to the use and subsistence of mankind …” (Matthew Henry, 2263).

Second, the Context of the Creation. In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth God specifically stated that mankind, who was created “in His image” (Gen. 1:26) was to “have dominion over” the earth and its products and to “subdue” it (Gen. 1:28). These phrases speak clearly of God’s intention for the created earth and the environment—that mankind is to manage it. “The dominion of man, the God-like king, only begins with his natural realm, …extended by cultural conquest over all the creation kingdoms …The subordination of both animal and plant kingdoms to man’s royal service …” (Eerdman’s Bible Commentary, 83).

It is from this premise of dominion that the concept of Private Property flows. Biblical truth assumes that since man “has dominion over” the earth, men have also the right to own property. “Thou shalt not steal” is built on this framework. So also is the familiar Old Testament law forbidding one from “removing his neighbor’s landmark” (Deut. 19:14).

Landmarks, or boundary markers in the OT, designated one’s private property and were considered “sacred.” To “move” the markers was to “steal” property. Thus, a curse was placed upon those who “removed them” just the same as a curse was pronounced upon one who cursed his father or perverted the rights of orphans and widows (Hos. 5:10; Prov. 22:28; 23:10). Landmarks were regarded as sacred among other nations besides Israel. Romans, for example, enacted the death penalty against those who removed them. Private property rights rest on man’s dominion.

Third, the Context of America. Ancient paganism and its modern Green version, represented by many in the environmental movement, disavow that the earth was created by the One God for man’s usage. Therefore, instead of “subduing” the earth pagans “worship” it. Imagining that the world is a personification of a goddess ancient pagans consider the earth “sacred” and celebrated its seasonal cycles with religious observances. The modern counterpart of ancient paganism is represented in part by The Millenium Institute which presses for “Sustainable Development.” This doctrine demands that mankind submits to global management in which the products of the earth are rationed.

Man is denounced as the problem with this new philosophy. One prominent globalist told Gerald Barney, the author of Global 2000 for the Jimmy Carter Administration, that “Christianity is the menace of the earth.” The Clinton Administration championed Al Gore who began his crusade for a New Earth Ethic with publication of Earth in the Balance in which he sought to re-write the Bible’s account of Genesis. Not only man, but all of nature was created “in God’s image” was the manner in which he argued with Moses.

From the Pagan Federation International website we are informed that earth must be “venerated.” The very first paganistic principle echoed there is that we all have a “love and kinship with nature” which is defined as “reverence for the life force and its ever-renewing cycles of life and death.” The earth itself therefore is “sacred” and the natural year is marked by festivals “which offer access to different divinities according to their affinity with different times of the year.” This “new earth ethic” in which man is described as the plague, is actually thousands of years old. It is rooted in ancient paganism.

Back to Homepage