08/17/11

Obama’s Plan to Remove Family Farmers from their Land

By: Henry Lamb
Gulag Bound

Rural Council: It’s About Control

Al Gore was beside himself when the Senate failed to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994. Gore had spent the first two years of his Vice-Presidency developing what he called his “Ecosystem Management Policy.” This new policy was nothing more than preparing the agencies of government to implement the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Agenda 21. These three policy documents were adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development.

Agenda 21 was the only document that was not an international treaty. It was, instead, a non-binding “soft-law” document that was designed to avoid the necessity of Congressional debate or Senate ratification. Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) — especially to implement Agenda 21 administratively — without oversight or interference from Congress. The agencies of government have done a masterful job of infecting almost all urban communities with some form of government control under the guise of “Sustainable Development,” which is the objective of Agenda 21.

Now, the Obama regime intends to impose the same kind of control over rural America through his White House Rural Council, also created by Executive Order.

The rather bland 18-page Convention on Biological Diversity came with an 1140-page instruction book called the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Page 993 of this instruction book says that the Convention’s plan for protecting biodiversity is “…central to the Wildlands Project recently-proposed in the United States.” Page 15 of the Wildlands Project says:

… at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones … assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone.

(Click Wild Lands Map for Detail)

Since the President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created, agencies of the federal government, and complicit environmental organizations, have been working overtime to get people out of rural areas, and into “stack-‘n’-pack” high-rise so-called “sustainable” communities. Under the guise of “preserving open space,” unelected bureaucrats ignore the property rights of the people who own the open space, and write regulations that sometimes require as much as 40 acres to build a single home. Quite often, development of any sort is absolutely prohibited. These regulations are typically delivered to a community through a comprehensive land use plan.

In more rural areas, especially in the farming and ranching parts of the country, these measures have not been as successful as the government wants. That’s why a new extension of the PCSD is needed. This time, however, they are calling it the White House Rural Council.

This Council, chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and consisting of the heads of 25 government departments and agencies, is charged with extending “sustainability” to that part of the country that has not already been subdued by the measures implemented by the PCSD.

How will they do it? Let us count the ways.

Consider the Department of Transportation’s recent announcement of its intention to reclassify farm vehicles and implements as “commercial” vehicles and require all drivers of these vehicles to hold a Commercial Driver’s License. Applicants for a CDL must be 21 years of age; submit a medical record, a complete driving record from any state in which a license has been obtained; and pass rigorous written and driving tests. CDL holders must keep a log of their activities available to law enforcement at any time; must not work more than 12 consecutive hours; must carry at least $750,000 in liability insurance; and many more requirements that farmers and ranchers just can’t meet.

flickr photo, Tasja

Farm children have always helped by learning early how to drive farm vehicles. Grandpa could drive the tractor, when he could not do the heavy lifting he did as a youngster. This DOT regulation will end farming and ranching as it has always been known in this country. Farmers and ranchers cannot afford to pay professional CDL holders to come plow the fields, mow the hay, or harvest the corn. Farmers and ranchers who can no longer make a living from the land will have no choice but to sell their land and move to a “stack-‘n’-pack” sustainable community. The only potential buyers for these farms are corporate agricultural conglomerates, land trusts, or the government. Since comprehensive land use plans, or other government regulations preclude the possibility of development in the open space, farmers and ranchers will never get the real value of the land.

To add to the hardship on rural families, the Department of Agriculture is still planning to require every farm animal to have an electronic identification ear tag, which will add more costs and bureaucratic red tape to farming and ranching operations.

Every agency that is a member of the White House Rural Council can, and will, find some regulation that rural land owners must comply with in order to stay on their land. This new Executive Order has but one purpose: to further tighten regulatory control over people in rural communities to ensure that their life-style becomes “sustainable,” or in plain language, government-approved.

08/17/11

From 2009: Michele Bachmann Stands With the Tea Party

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

There is no doubting Michele Bachmann’s commitment to “Tea Party” values.

08/17/11

Russia Today Complains About Ron Paul Media Treatment

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

There is no doubt that Moscow backed propaganda station Russia Today, is correct in their allegation that Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul does not get fair treatment from the US “mainstream media.”

But then, what GOP candidate does?

The interesting question is, why does Russia Today champion Ron Paul, but not more sound national security candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum?

08/17/11

“Why is Russian TV Backing Ron Paul?”

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

By: Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

During a time when Ron Paul supporters are complaining, with some justification, about the major media not giving their candidate’s success in Iowa enough attention, the Texas congressman is getting enormously favorable coverage from a foreign propaganda outlet—Russia Today television.

One of Paul’s leading supporters in the media, if the term “media” is broadly defined, is Adam Kokesh, host of a show, “Adam Vs. The Man,” on Moscow’s English-language channel. On Monday, Kokesh used his show, which reaches many U.S. cities, to complain about the American media not giving Paul more favorable coverage, attacking the newspaper Politico for ignoring Paul’s second-place finish in a headline over a story about the results.

Kokesh uses disparaging language when referring to other Republicans, such as calling Rick Santorum “a homophobic theocrat” and Rick Perry a “Ken doll.” He regularly attacks the “corporate media” in the U.S. without criticizing the Moscow regime that pays his salary.

Commentators have typically described Paul’s second place finish in the Iowa straw poll as the result of “college kids” supporting him. AIM has noted the major media’s reluctance to credit Paul for his success in presidential primaries.

But the advent of Russia Today (RT) television, which has been accused of serving as a vehicle for Russia’s intelligence services, puts the question of media coverage of the campaign in a new context—one of foreign interference in U.S. politics. The channel is carried in the Washington, D.C. media market by MHz Networks, a subsidiary of Commonwealth Public Broadcasting, which receives $3 million a year from federal and state governments.

Several websites feature a series of videos from RT, not limited to the Kokesh program, that are extremely favorable to Paul’s campaign. The channel features attractive female anchors who speak flawless English and claim to have America’s best interests at heart. Many observers agree the channel is far more effective than the heavy-handed Soviet propaganda of the Cold War years.

But RT has been such an enthusiastic supporter of the Paul campaign that some observers think the channel, which is registered as a foreign corporation in the U.S., has violated U.S. election law. Foreign corporations are prohibited from “contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly,” according to the Federal Election Commission.

On June 6, 2011, Kokesh ended his show with remarks that go beyond merely reporting the news to endorsing Paul and highlighting a “money bomb” and fundraising for him. The transcript reads as follows:

“Kokesh: I’d like to end tonight on a note of some good news. We have some good news from the front lines of the Ron Paul “LOVEalution” with our money bomb on June 5. I was happy to donate to that. Yesterday we raised over one million dollars for the Ron Paul campaign. And I’m starting to figure out what electable means, because electable or non-electable is really a code word for ‘if this person wins, I’m not gonna be able to get as much money from the government.’ But if you want electable, please support the reelection campaign of President Barack Obama. If you want a President who’s going to honor his oath to the Constitution and your freedom; I urge you to support none other than Congressman Ron Paul.”

Kokesh publicly endorsed Paul, saying, “I urge you to support none other than Congressman Ron Paul,” and mentioned that he was “happy to donate to that [Ron Paul money bomb].”

A disgruntled U.S. Marine veteran who openly acknowledges his current role as a paid agent of Moscow, Kokesh says his program is an example of “libertarian television.” He has been backing Paul—and Paul’s organization has supported him—since Kokesh unsuccessfully ran for the Congress in New Mexico in 2010.

But Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America said Kokesh is masquerading as a conservative-libertarian in order to lure viewers into accepting a far-left agenda. Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin called Kokesh a “smear merchant” who wears “GOP clothing.”

Nevertheless, Kokesh continues to advertise himself as a Republican supporter of Ron Paul. “Ron Paul trampled the competition with logic and reason at the Ames debate,” Kokesh insists. During the debate, Paul said he would not object to Iran getting nuclear weapons and called for trade relations with Communist Cuba. Paul also complained about “war propaganda” designed to lay the groundwork for military action against Iran.

“Rep. Paul, who is excellent on many other issues, reveals both a shocking naïveté regarding Cuba and Iran, and a deep misunderstanding of the principles of free trade, when applied to belligerent nations,” countered anti-communist blogger Trevor Loudon, a prominent critic of Russia Today.

On the Big Peace website, writer and researcher Spyridon Mitsotakis called Paul the Republican Party’s Henry Wallace, a reference to the Democrat considered so naïve about the communist threat that he ran for president on the ticket of the Progressive Party, which was dominated and manipulated by the Communist Party.

Some political observers think Paul’s campaign has the potential to undermine the Republican Party as it goes into the 2012 campaign and help guarantee Obama’s re-election. Conservative columnist Douglas MacKinnon says, “I spoke recently with a senior Democrat strategist who offered up a quite logical and incredibly frightening scenario for those who are desperate to vote Barack Obama out of office in 2012. His theory goes like this: That the Obama White House and the Obama re-election team are going to work overtime behind the scenes to push enough of Texas Republican Ron Paul’s ‘libertarian’ buttons to eventually have him declare as a third-party candidate.”

This theory holds that Paul could attract enough votes away from potential Republican voters to throw the election to Obama.

08/17/11

‘Submissive Wife’ Not What Left Thinks it Is

By: Deanna Murray
Big Government

In Thursday’s FOX News GOP Presidential Debate, a resounding roar of ‘boos’ filled the auditorium when debate moderator Washington Examiner Columnist Byron York asked Congresswoman Michele Bachmann whether she would be “submissive to her husband” if she were elected president.

This question was framed after a comment Bachmann had made a few years back about how she didn’t want to do something her husband had asked her to do (return to school to become a tax attorney), but she buckled down and did it because he asked. She said she was ‘submissive’ to his wishes.

The idea of wives submitting to their husbands is a Biblical-based principle ingrained into fundamental Christians since Paul wrote the words in Ephesians 2:22-24:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

The writer of Ephesians, Paul (formerly a soldier known as Saul who persecuted Christians in Rome), was writing letters to churches he supported while he was in prison and during his vast travels to support Christians in the region. He was outlining instructions/guidance to keep the people of the church focused on God in a society not all-together friendly to the Christian faith.

Let’s not forget Christians were being herded up and thrown into arenas and into Lion’s Dens. His words were those of comfort and of unity and were spoken out of a desire to allow Christians a support system. In the social class present back in the day, men were revered as the leader of the home and of the society in which they lived. Therefore, Paul instructed women to listen to their husbands (who were often more educated and world wise than they were) and then in turn, for husbands to support the church as Christ had.

There is still a place for this, but it is different now as times are different and a woman’s role in this society has astoundingly changed.

In our culture, meanings change through the years based on the times and the interpretation. If they didn’t, “gay” would still mean “happy”; “cool” would only mean a temperature and a rainbow would still represent God’s promise to Noah.

Times have indeed changed.

Women have more of a role in this world and in running it and their opinions are respected, acted upon, and continue to make dynamic changes daily.

For someone like me, who actually can’t stand to be told what to do, the word ‘submission’ is pretty much as evil as they come – if a person were to only look at the negative connotation of the word.

Those who want to make Bachmann appear weak because she values her husband’s opinion consider the phrase ‘wives, submit to your husbands’ to mean a woman shouldn’t ever do anything her husband doesn’t sanction, approve of or agree with. She is only as smart as her man says she is; only able to do what her husband says she is capable of and can only make a decision when HE is available to be the deciding party.

The idea of a woman not being able to have her own thoughts or control what she wants to do just because she is in a ‘submissive’ state to her husband is a horrid prison indeed. And what a terrible place this world would be if submission in this sense were the rule of the day for those married.

Leftists want us to believe her commitment to her religion and husband would make her a woman controlled by another – that, instead of Michele Bachmann, President of the United States, all of a sudden we’d have the first co-presidents, Mr. and Mrs. Bachmann, Presidents of the United States.

This simply isn’t true. I applaud Bachmann in the way she explained what submission means to her. She was graceful, dignified and absolutely undaunted by the question.

She spoke of the partnership she shares with her husband, based on mutual respect and collaboration. She further explained, on the Sunday morning talk shows, she doesn’t believe the role of a submissive wife is that of a subservient.

Would she ask her husband for his opinion in matters concerning this country? Of course there would be discussions. But do we really believe former presidents of this country have not discussed national dilemmas with their wives? Collaboration is what we expect. This is why we have a president and not a dictator. It’s why our president has advisors who give him the advice needed–the view of an issue from all angles–in order to make the right decision. And in any strong marriage, a husband or wife will turn to their spouse to get a much-needed, respected perspective.

I might be more hesitant to throw stones at the asking of this question to someone like Hilary Clinton–of course, knowing what we know of Hilary and the relationship she and Bill have now (as well as what they shared in the White House), our country might be slightly better off if the two of them had talked more and kept each other happy…but hey, that’s not how the left sees it.

Dems are still in love with a former president who cheated on his wife, had ‘sex’ with an intern in the Oval office and lied time and time again about it to Congress. But they will throw the fact that a woman, who has consistently achieved national and state-side results and is smart as hell, has a strong, loving, respectful relationship with her husband AND values his opinion? Are we really that gone from understanding the importance of a working, happy relationship?

Does her admission to being a submissive wife make her incapable of running this country? Of course it doesn’t. Her religious beliefs, albeit not for everyone, show she has conviction, moral strength, and most of all guidance from a higher power the founding fathers themselves believed in and trusted. Our country was founded on the faith Bachmann holds true to her heart.

If Bachmann was president, this would be her job. Christian women who believe in the submission to one’s husband make decisions on a constant basis without calling their husbands every five minutes to ask direction. Bachmann would be no exception. Based on the way she has approached her job in Congress, we can assume she would hold true to what she knows to be good, right and constitutional.

Just as they vilified a Bachmann migraine, now the Democrats are trying to demonize the possibility of a female president just because she’s a wife in a happy marriage who happens to respect and value the opinion of the person she’s spent the majority of her life with.

The people of Iowa rebuked this latest attempt at disparagement with Bachmann’s Straw Poll win, but who knows what else the Dems will come up with to throw at Bachmann.

Can we talk about why she prefers a FRENCH Manicure over an AMERICAN Manicure (is it unpatriotic?)? Solid journalism requires asking tough questions of candidates, but when it comes to Bachmann, those left-wing activists parading as journalists will apply every double standard to squeeze her into their template.

08/17/11

REAL or FAKE: Can you tell which of these government spending projects are real or fake?

Hat Tip: Nancy Jacques

08/17/11

Germany And France Announce Plans For Single European Government As Solution To Debt Crisis

08/17/11

Big Dave Reports LIVE from ISRAEL!

By: Andrea Shea King
The Radio Patriot

LIVE from ISRAEL

Big Dave from Dallas has arrived in Israel for the Glenn Beck “Restoring Courage” event. He’s on the ground, and for today and maybe longer, this post will stick to the top. If you’re not signed on to GBTV yet, here’s the link. $5 a month/ $50 a year.

My more recent posts can be found by scrolling down below this one.

Aug. 17 – 11:57 am – Nazareth from a nearby cliff.

Aug. 17 – 11:10 am – We roll into Nazareth, while our guide explains lunch to his wide eyed tourists…. and that big, grand, new, fabulous building right at the top of the hill? you guessed it. Government. The “northern regional council” I think it said. Very expensive, very new, sticks out like a sore thumb, reminds me of our stupid new city hall in Irving.

Aug. 16 – 11:45 pm — Sunrise on the Sea of Galilee

9:08 pm ET — Leaving Ben Gurion airport, Tel Aviv looked like many cities I’ve seen. Wide, not too tall (a decent downtown area), and situated on a desert backdrop that reminded me of nothing else but Las Vegas. The buildings are all white or off white, but other than that, the landscape is a match for the Nevada desert.

Driving past the valley of Megiddo… Where perhaps the last great battle of mankind will be fought…

The bus headed east-north-east, crossing the body of Israel to the Sea of Galilee. I was limited to the bus-window view on this, my first day in the Holy Land after decades of wishing, and yet that bus window showed me a lot of things.

Turning east toward Galilee. More bus window video, you can hear our Arab Christian guide in the background…

I saw the incredible roughness of the coastal desert, the tough plants and dry infertile soil, and I could not imagine the courage of the people who were so determined to build and grow things here.

Then the climb began, and pines and deciduous trees appeared on hillsides as the altitude increased. In the area of Mt. Carmel, the peaks are over 500 metres above sea level and the trees are HUGE. And soon we saw gold domes and minarets, signaling the Arab Israeli areas as we neared the northern border of the West Bank.

And just like that, the highway paralleled a concrete fence with a barbed wire topper just to the right of the road, the actual border with the northern part of the West Bank. The parallel lasted for a mile or more.

We drove past Cana, the town where Christ worked His first miracle. He turned water into wine at the wedding feast there. And on a distant hilltop in the haze, we saw Nazareth.

The climb continued, a gradual one that had to have taken us a thousand feet above sea level, and suddenly the bus took us down a steep hill overlooking the sea of Galilee. It’s a beautiful body of water in the high desert, but it is LOW, seven hundred feet below sea level! Only seeing it will give the full sensation of it. On the winding road down, you pass a sign at roadside saying ‘niveau de la mare’, sea level, and the lake is still WAY on down the hill.

I noticed two things in Tiberias before I fell victim to two days of sleepless travel. First, gasoline is roughly seven NIS per litre, meaning about $8 a gallon.

Second, the stone foothills of the Golan Heights do something marvelous at sunset. When the town of Tiberias on the western shore is already in shadow, and the sun can only reach the hills on the eastern shore, it turns those stones a brilliant pink.

Pictures to come. Day one, done. Eight more to go. Or is it nine….?

Video of passing countryside: