WHAT TURNED FILMMAKER DAVID MAMET FROM ‘BRAIN DEAD LIBERAL’ TO CONSERVATIVE?

• Written  by  TIFFANY GABBAY
• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-turned-filmmaker-david-mamet-from-brain-dead-liberal-to-conservative/the-secret-knowledge/
• 
  
• On GBTV The Glenn Beck Program Wednesday evening, award-winning author, producer and director David Mdiscussed his latest book, “The Secret Knowledge” with guest host Andrew Wilkow. The work chronicles Mamet‘s transition from liberal to conservative and explains the reasons for the famed writer’s awakening.

Mamet solidified his place in American film and theater with such works as Glengarry Glen Ross, The Verdict, Wag the Dog, and The Untouchablesand had frequently included typical liberal themes throughout his screenplays — that is until he made the conversion.

 

In a now famous op-ed for The Village Voice in 2008, “Why I am no Longer a Brain Dead Liberal,’” Mamet revealed that essentially, he had been living a liefor most of his life, as the liberal beliefs he held fast to in his mind were not actually reflected in his day-to-day words and deeds. He wrote that after being prompted by his rabbi to engage in dialogue with those who sit on the opposite side of the ideological aisle, he recognized that he held two opposite views of America: One of a state “where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).” After this revelation, Mamet realized that the time had come to acknowledge he was in fact part of  the latter version of America.

After reading the works of economists Thomas Sowell, who he called “our greatest contemporary philosopher,” and Milton Friedman among others, Mamet found that he “agreed with them.” “…a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.”

In The Secret Knowledge, Mmet writes that when faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges, people can succumb to a belief in the power of the state and those who dub themselves “experts,” as means of rectifying the nation’s ills. What results, according to the Pulitzer Prize-winner, is a contingent besieged by Stockholm Syndrome.

He adds that the“essence of Leftist thought” is a “devolution from reason to ‘belief,’ in an effort to stave off a feeling of powerlessness.” The Wall Street Journal’s Bari Weiss summed up the central theme‘s of Mamet’s “Knowledge” in the following way:

“College is nothing more than “Socialist Camp.” Liberalism is like roulette addiction. Toyota’s Prius, he tells me, is an “anti-chick magnet“ and ”ugly as a dogcatcher’s butt.” Hollywood liberals—his former crowd—once embraced Communism “because they hadn’t invented Pilates yet.” Oh, and good radio isn’t NPR (“National Palestinian Radio”) but Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.”

During Wednesday’s program, Mamet told Wilkow that celebrities notorious for their liberalism, like Jane Fonda, use their activism as a means to merely feel good about themselves. “They gave themselves an award,” he quipped.

He also considers the Obama administration an “incipient totalitarian movement,” and decried the fact that those who criticize the president are labeled racist, anti- feminist, anti-Muslim or other pejorative.

In terms of the Occupy movement, Mamet said they are mostly “good meaning idiots” but that their more sinister element — like the ones who plot to blow up bridges — are no different than the Nazi Brown Coats who perpetrated Kristallnacht — or, the “night of broken glass.”

As the conversation veered to education, Mamet had few kind words for liberal arts colleges and universities. As someone who has actually taught at some of the nation’s most prestigious Ivy Leagues, Mamet said what can be found there is nothing but liberal indoctrination, anti-Semitism and “unpatriotic filth.”

When asked what prompted the conversion, Mamet explained that upon examining the moral principles by which he lived, he started to investigate conservatism and is now trying to impart that wisdom to younger generations, including his daughter.

Noting that the press are “sycophants” that cannot be trusted to report the facts, Mamet cautioned the only ones who can be trusted are private citizens. .

“We have to judge according to the standards of the constitution,” he said, because “the country is going down the drain.”

The Most Dangerous Man In The World

 Tom DeWeese

May 9, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Ed Note: This is a speech I first gave to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 1996, just four years after the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. At the time I gave this address there were strong indications that Maurice Strong could be chosen as the next UN Secretary General. It didn’t happen, but that didn’t diminish his influence over the body. In fact, In 1996 all roads in the UN led to Maurice Strong. This speech represented the first time that the CPAC audience and most conservatives had ever heard of the radical agenda of the environmental movement. It was probably the first time the term Sustainable Development was ever heard by a conservative audience. In fact, at the time I gave this speech, environmentalism was the most popular and most powerful movement in the world. Yet, here, 15 years before “Climategate” I was revealing the very root of what was to become the “Climate Change” movement and its drive to destroy the industrial West. By the way, tapes of this speech became the most popular of any ever produced by the American Policy Center and continues to be one of our best sellers. TD

Let me begin by asking you a few questions. They may seem rather silly – but I have a point. So, please, just indulge me for a moment – just answer with a show of hands:

How many of you know of Adolf Hilter – and that he was evil? How many of you know Mao Tse Tung – and that he was evil? How many of you know of Lenin and Stalin – and that they were evil?

How many of you know of Maurice Strong – and that he is evil?

The most evil man in the world! (Added by Don Bright)

There is the point of my questions. Maurice Strong has the potential to be the most powerful and most evil dictator the world has ever known – right now – today – in our day and age – and yet, most of you have never heard of him.

So let me sound the warning bell – loud and long. Maurice Strong will, in all likely hood be the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

Now, you may be wondering why I’m talking about the subject of the United Nations when this panel is about the assault on property rights. What does Maurice Strong have to do with American property Rights? Everything.

The assault on property rights – in fact the entire radical environmental agenda – is being driven by the United Nations. And Maurice Strong is the number one force behind UN environmental policy. Maurice Strong is the leader of a radical contingent of Environmentalists that believe technology and modern industrialization must be stopped.

Does that sound overstated or too extreme? Well, let me read you a much more radical statement and these are not my words – they’re Maurice Strong’s:

In 1992, Strong told a UN conference…:“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Now, let me explain this new term “Sustainable” that you will see popping up in environmental policy more and more. Radical greens believe that all of man’s activities on Earth are harmful (and therefore not sustainable). They believe that man is a cancer on the Earth. Their goal is to slowly cut back and finally end all development and reduce human habitat to specific areas while the rest of the world is turned into wilderness.

Maurice Strong and his buddies are the driving force behind a ndw age pagan religion known as Gaia. It is pure nature worship. Strong owns a 63 thousand acre ranch in Colorado called Baca Grande that will never be bothered by the Forest Service or the Army Corp of Engineers. Because Baca Grande is the Mecca for Gaia worshippers and mystics. Here, Strong has built a temple to a Babylonian Sun God. Baca Grande, Strong believes, is the “Vatican City” of the New World Order.

Maurice Strong is also a director of the Temple of Understanding in New York City, where pagan rituals and earth worship include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for a blessing. Elephants and camels walk the aisles. A soprano sax is used to create the sound of the wolf moaning its extinction at the hand of man. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a “sermon” as worshippers marched to the alter with bowls of compost and worms.

This wacky scene is the basis for today’s environmental agenda that has grown way beyond a call for clean air and the recycling of plastic bottles and newspapers. In Maurice Strong’s Gaia- driven world – it’s OK for a beaver to build a dam – but not man. It’s OK for a bear to fish in the lake – but not man.

It’s OK for a wolf to eat meat (especially if it’s the farmer’s sheep – but not man. Suffice it to say that no human activity is “Sustainable.”

So, when Maurice Strong speaks of Man’s consumption of meat, the use of air conditioning, or the ownership of suburban housing, can there be any doubt what he plans for the future? Can there be any doubt where he intends to take the United Nations once he’s Secretary General?

Maybe this will make it clearer. In yet another interview, Maurice Strong said, “It is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful.” That’s the Constitutional sovereignty of the United States he is talking about. And what does he plan to do about it?

You may have heard recent reports that the United Nations is floating the ideas for global taxation to fund the UN’s activities. There has been a lot of whining that the UN can’t live on its members’ contributions and that sound economics demand that it find an independent way to sustain itself. The media is reporting these taxation ideas as just possibilities. But the plan is very well along toward implementation, and Maurice Strong is the driving force behind it.

Strong said in 1994 “the 50th anniversary of the UN provides a unique opportunity to restructure and revitalize the UN to prepare for the vastly increased role it must have as the primary multilateral framework of a new world order.”

Current UN plans call for a permanent volunteer army, conversion of the international monetary fund into a world central bank and the adoption of the concept of global taxation. Just one of Strong’s taxation schemes would pour over $1.5 trillion into UN coffers.

Now, it is extremist, radical fringe and politically incorrect to suggest that the United Nations is engaged in a drive for one world government. It is well known, – according to our president and the news media, – that the UN is only interested in promoting world peace and stability. So you won’t hear such radical statements from me.

But it does cause concern when a man, who believes that industrialized society is the most vile, evil structure on earth, is placed in charge of an organization, without general election, and that body is able to reap trillions of dollars of income, answerable to no one, with its own army, its own world bank and treaties signed by every nation on earth giving it control over policy and development.

And the United States has signed such treaties – lots of them – with many more pending. And the Clinton administration is using every means necessary to assure all such UN treaties are signed into American law. And virtually all of Strong’s ideas and beliefs are reflected in those treaties. Maybe I’m just paranoid – but all of that concerns me.

But there’s more – Maurice Strong, the man who will soon rule the United Nations’ empire, the man who will control the UN’s army and its massive income and will be unelected by any of us – wants to write a novel.

During an interview for “West” magazine, Strong mused about the plot of his novel. It reveals much about how the man thinks.

According to Strong’s book idea, each year, world leaders would meet in Switzerland for an economic forum. These leaders would decide that the only way the planet could survive would be for the rich nations to voluntarily agree to reduce consumption. Strong goes on to explain that, in his novel, the rich countries do not sign such agreements, so the world leaders decide the only way to save the planet is to bring down industrialized societies.

They create a secret society and place its members in strategic government positions and at the helm of critical financial institutions. Then at meetings of the forum in Switzerland, mercenaries are hired to hold the world leaders hostage while the members of the secret society proceed to crash the world’s economy by jamming the gears of the commodity and stock markets preventing any of the world’s markets from closing.

Within hours, “the rich countries…” Strong stopped the story and flicked his fingers as if he were tossing a cigarette butt. – gone.

Maurice Strong today controls the UN’s Business Council for Sustainable Development. It is a hand picked group of 50 of the world’s most powerful business leaders. Among them: Kenneth Derr of Chevron and William Ruckleshous. Both Derr and Ruchelshous now serve on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Within the next few weeks President Clinton will announce the report on his Council on Sustainable Development and that will become Clinton’s blue print for environmental policy. This document comes straight out of the United Nations. – straight out of the cunning mind of Maurice Strong.

That environmental policy calls for turning 50% of every American state into wilderness, it will destroy industry and jobs and take away private property rights. And it will tie American sovereignty directly to United National policies. It has nothing to do with preserving clean air and water. It has everything to do with Maurice Strong’s demented drive for power.

Throughout history tyrants have sought to rule the world. Always their efforts to achieve that goal have brought harsh dictatorship and misery. Always men have asked how these mad escapades were possible. America was created to prevent it.Hitler, Mao and Stalin were amateurs compared to Maurice Strong – because he’s well on his way to world dictatorship without ever firing a shot.

The biodiversity treaty and UN Heritage Sites are being implemented on American soil right now. And property owners are already suffering as environmental policies are taking their land and their jobs.

There is only one way to fight back. Only one way to stop Maurice Strong’s Drive for power. In this day of MTV politics and 10 second sound bite policy statements let me give you a sound bite as the solution. Shout it from the rafters. Demand it of your elected representatives. Make it your personal political goal.

(you can say it with me) Get the United States out of the United Nations.

(say it again as loud as you can) Get the United States out of the United Nations. And keep saying it until someone hears you.

© 2012 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

Related Articles:

1- Agenda 21, the end of Western Civilization
2- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama’s Agenda 21
3- U.N. Biospheres: A Scheme to Control People and Their Land

   Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report

For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911

E-Mail: admin@americanpolicy.org

E-Mail: ampolicycenter@hotmail.com

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

OBAMA’S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:

” America is not at war, the US Marines are at war; America is at the
mall.”

Let’s be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American
sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks before, was debating on whether or
not to PAY, did! In fact, if you remember a little less than two years
ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial
three Navy Seals from Seal Team Six, when a terrorist suspect they
captured, complained they had punched him during the take-down and
bloodied his nose. Obama’s administration further commented how brutal
they were. The left were calling them Nazi’s and Baby Killers. Now all
of a sudden, the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they
make his administration look good in the eyes of the public. Obama just
happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found the
And our sailors took him out. Essentially, Obama only gave an answer,
Yes or No, to him being taken out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an
AMERICAN victory!!

2008: “Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney’s private assassination team.”

2011: “I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden.”

2008: “Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured
alive and given a fair trial.”

2011: “I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden.

“2008: ” Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated.”

2011: “Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that
led to our locating Bin Laden.”

Ed Schreiber
Col. USMC (Ret.)

MECHANISM IN PLACE TO FIX 2012 ELECTIONS FOR OBAMA/SOETORO

 By: Devvy Kidd   http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd533.htm

May 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

I have been writing about vote fraud since 1993. Few Americans became interested in the cold reality that since the mid-1960s our elections have been rigged until the 2000 presidential election and the farce known as ‘hanging chads’. As regular readers of my columns know I belong to no party; I left the Republican Party in 1996 over vote fraud and the putrid world of dirty politics where the truth didn’t matter. It still doesn’t to party hacks whose only goal is to climb the political ladder of power.

The Florida recount energized Democrats; the howling was heard from coast to coast. Laughable when you consider the Democratic Party machine is more famous for vote fraud than Republicans. Both sides engage in it and that’s a fact.

The 2004 presidential “election” was another farce. An illusion to keep the herds believing their vote actually counted. It only counts when those who count the ballots put it in the desired win column. In 2008, Richard Hayes Phillips book, Witness To A Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of an American Election, was published. That book is an absolute condemnation of vote fraud in the State of Ohio. Phillips, who I interviewed when I had my radio show, examined 126,00 ballots, 127 poll books and 141 voter signature books from 18 counties: “Thousands of ballots in heavily Democratic precincts were pre-punched for third-party candidates. Voting machines were rigged, tabulators were rigged, ballot boxes were stuffed, ballots were altered, ballots were sorted according to candidate, and ballots were destroyed.”

Fair and impartial elections is our absolute right in this country regardless of what party you belong to or what candidate you support. For the destroyers and their minions, putting the same incumbents back into office to carry out the planned destruction of this republic is the only goal. The Department of InJustice under Eric Holder, a racist and as corrupt a political animal as they come, is going after many states in their attempt to stop voter registration fraud. The Democratic Party wants illegal aliens, felons and dead people voting. It’s the only way they can win. A dirty machine stealing our elections for their agenda.

Obama/Soetoro has no constitutional authority to run for the presidency. He didn’t in 2008, yet that malignant narcissist and pathological liar continues to camp out in the the people’s White House because of cowardice by judges and career politicians. Barry Soetoro, the last known legal name for Barack Hussein Obama, is already on the campaign trail and now – unless it is stopped – the mechanism is in place to fix the election in his favor – again.

Spanish Company Will “Count” American Votes Overseas In November

“When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election. For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states–900 total jurisdictions–across the nation.

“As the largest election results reporting company in the US, SOE provides reports right down to the precinct level. But before going anywhere else, those election returns are routed to individual, company servers where the people who run them “…get ‘first look’ at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.” In short, “this redirects results …to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.”

“And although the votes will be cast in hometown, American precincts on Election Day, with the Barcelona-based SCYTL taking charge of the process, they will be routed and counted overseas…

“t has also been claimed that SCYTL CEO Pere Valles is a socialist who donated heavily to the 2008 Obama campaign and lived in Chicago during Obama’s time as Illinois State Senator. Unfortunately, given what is known about the character of Barack Obama, such rumors must be taken as serious threats to the integrity of the 2012 vote and the legitimate outcome of the election.

“Though much has been written about the threat of nationwide voting by illegals in November, it is still true that most election fraud is an “inside” job. And there now exists a purely electronic voting service which uses no physical ballots to which an electronic count can be matched should questions arise. Add to this the fact that the same company will have “first count” on all votes made in 14 US states and hundreds of jurisdictions in 12 others, and the stage is set for election fraud on a scale unimaginable just a decade ago.”

It gets worse:

“Because the CEO of SKYTL, Pere Valles, a socialist who donated heavily to the 2008 Obama campaign and lived in Chicago during Obama’s time as Illinois State Senator, will be counting our ballots. He used to be VP and Chief Financial officer of GlobalNET, a NASDAQ publicly traded telecommunications company headquartered in Chicago.”

Why we should be concerned

“So what does this mean for all us non-European voters here in America?

“According to Michael Savage, “[T]his critical component to a free election, the transparent tabulation of votes, will not be handled by individual precincts but by a company over which we will have little control…The problem is that once the votes are merged, it will be impossible to go back and check their integrity at the local level. It is very likely that this is the final step in Barack Obama’s corruption of the voting process. It has the promise of enabling him and his cohorts to control the outcomes of federal elections with no accountability. On top of that it’s one more step toward a global government.”

“There are no Americans on the Board of Directors of Scytl—but CEO Pere Valles once lived and worked in Barack’s old stomping grounds, Chicago.”

Bev Harris is truly a warrior when it comes to vote fraud in this country. Her web site, BlackBoxVoting, is dedicated to nothing but vote fraud and a lot of hard work goes into keeping us informed. Bev breaks it down even further:

“In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.

“When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.

“The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.

“As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.

“In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.

“This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.

“A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.

“With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won’t work (if SCYTL’s voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own “audit” by matching one number against the other.

“These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.

“With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.

“SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.

“SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.”

Who in your state authorized SCTYL to count your vote? Your state legislature? Get on the phone and find out. Do YOU want our voting system to be controlled globally? This monstrous set up will make sure fraud is once again shoved in our faces while Soetoro and his global pals laugh in our face. SCYTL has also contracted with the Department of Defense, W. VA, NY, DC, AL and Florida for overseas ballots and military votes. This is truly one of the most brazen plans I’ve seen since I first began writing and speaking out about vote fraud stealing our elections.

Vote fraud has been allowed to flourish for decades because most candidates will not demand a hand recount of the ballots in front of the public. I’ve written about it over and over and over until I’m blue in the face. If Sharron Angle had audited the vote in Nevada, Harry Reid would not be in the U.S. Senate today. Of course, the entire U.S. Senate is serving under a law that does not exist. Candidates owe it to their supporters to audit the dang vote when they lose.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

I am not exaggerating when I tell you that stinking communist in the White House will once again get elected even though no one has the right to vote for him because he does not meet constitutional requirements.

Unless boots on the ground in the millions demand answers and stop SCYTL from counting a single vote in this country and for our military. When this is published, I’m sending a copy to my state representative and a few others in our legislator who actually care about our voting process because Texas is on the list. If you’re a tea party group, 9/12 group or just an individual like me – get on the phone and demand answers from your state representative and your county clerk. Ask the county clerk about what type of machine will be used to steal your vote in November. Why waste your time and money supporting a candidate for president when we know the fix is already in for November?

SO YOU THINK YOUR PROPERTY IS YOURS? 

Well. you better think again!

Don A. Bright 

Okay, all you people out there who think your taxes are too low hold up your hands. The rest of you are excused. Both of you. 

Well (and this won’t come as a surprise to most of you) the people in government today don’t think you are paying enough.  In fact, the grotesque idea that Americans are stingy and should be forced to “donate” more of their rightful possessions to the Government is held as moral truth by most of the members of the liberal ruling class.

Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) says it best: “These members believe today’s taxpayers are perpetrating an injustice by not paying more taxes, and that most of the money you make presumptively belongs to the government. Since your money really belongs to the government, tax cuts represent a government “giveaway.”

Several attempts have been made to put a figure on the total amount of each American’s income that is confiscated by the government and none of them have been completely successful.  It is, however, accepted by most experts that over 60 per cent of your income is lost to the government when you add up all the various forms of taxation.  (That includes the so-called “fees”, “fines”, “service charges”, “TIF extractions”  and all the other euphemisms for taxes used by politicians.) But is that all?  No. Do you actually own any of the rest?  Or, better put, do you actually own anything?

A wise man once said the power to tax is the power to destroy.  I agree.  Power to lay claim to our possessions is the power to destroy every “inalienable” right that we have claimed to be ours.

Is there a limit?  Do we, as free citizens, have any right to say, “Enough is enough”? Yes, we do.  That is, we do if the government abides by the law.  Does the government follow the law?  No!

The Constitution of the State of Arkansas (my home state) prohibits the government from confiscatory behavior.  Article 2, Section 22 says: “The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation.”

Article 2, Section 28 of our Constitution states unequivocally that the government has no right to attach any restraints on and must recognize unfettered ownership of real property:  “All lands in this State are declared to be allodial; and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are prohibited.”  According to the dictionary allodial is described as: “A system of land ownership in which land is held free and clear of any rent or service due to the government; commonly contrasted to the feudal system.”  Under a feudal system the person does not own the land but is considered a “serf” or squatter subject to forced dislocation by the government if certain demands placed on the serf are not forthcoming; in other words, a slave of the government.

Amendment 47 to the Arkansas Constitution makes it even clearer.  The entire amendment consists of only 12 words: “No ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon property by the State.”  Ad valorem means a duty (read tax) placed on property “according to the value”.  So the Constitution forbids the State from imposing any tax based on the value of property.

Why did the authors of our Constitution go to such great lengths to keep the concept of private property so sacrosanct?  To prevent the citizens of the state from ever being made to suffer 100 percent taxation.  These wise men knew that the best way to prevent total government control and provide the people freedom from slavery was to exempt property from government’s reach.

If a government is allowed to pirate possessions at will, that government is evil at best and tyrannical at its worst.

Earlier in this commentary I asked the question, “Do we own anything?”  The answer to that question is no, because the Government, aided and abetted by a growing judicial malignancy, has chosen to exempt itself from control by “the people”.  And it does so by blatant disregard of the law. We no longer own anything; we rent everything from the government.  If you do not believe me I suggest that you try going a couple of years without paying your rent (property tax) and see who ends up with the property.

We must remember that the concept of owning property is not some modality of capitalism or for that matter any other “ism”.  Owning property and the concept of private property is not a privilege; it is an absolute necessity for the existence of freedom. Government cannot grant us rights.  Government can only – through use of the threat of physical violence – steal our rights.  We, as human beings, are born with our rights.

So it’s more than an issue of oppressive taxation.  It is a matter of civil rights.  If the government is not prevented from keeping a completely hands-off approach to our property then we have no civil rights.

If you think you have the right to free speech, try handing out leaflets on government property.  If you think you have the right to be free from “unreasonable seizures” carry an ounce or so of an “illegal” substance in your car.  The government will seize your car.

If you think you have freedom of religion try reading the Bible or Koran or giving a sermon on the steps of a post office. If you think you have the freedom of assembly try having your own parade without government permission. You will be arrested and charged because the government owns the street, you don’t.  If you think you have freedom of expression try entering a courtroom with the symbol of your heritage, the confederate flag.

I am not saying any of the restrictions cited above are necessarily bad.  What I am saying is that there is a difference between where you can and cannot exercise liberty.  You have no liberty or freedom on property the government owns.  And you probably don’t know it but the federal government owns more than 50% of the land in this country.  Add in that property owned by municipalities, counties and states and the rent we pay to use it and you can see that “we the people” own none of it.

And as long as we allow the government to extort a monetary bribe in exchange for government controlled use of our personal property we have no liberties at all.  We own nothing and have no freedom.  As Henry David Thoreau put it:

“Talk about slavery! It is not the peculiar institution of the South. It exists wherever men are bought and sold, wherever a man allows himself to be made a mere thing or a tool, and surrenders his inalienable rights of reason and conscience. Indeed, this slavery is more complete than that which enslaves the body alone.”

I think it time we stand up and rattle our chains until they are removed

Whose Civil Rights?

Don A. Bright

I’m sick and tired of all this nonsense about liberals being on the side of “civil rights”. Their philosophy on “civil rights” is always the same:  the rest of us are supposed to remain civil while they take away our rights. They have an agenda and have used their friends in the liberal media to hide this agenda behind warm and fuzzy terms like “human rights”, “civil rights” and “environmentalism”.  Actually, the collectivist goals of liberals are anti-civil, anti-environment and anti-right.

The most important civil right, the civil right that over-rides all others, is the right to strive for complete fulfillment as a human being. And that means free enterprise; and free enterprise means capitalism.  Capitalism is the core of civil rights.    We all have an inalienable right to capitalize on the abilities we have to pursue completeness as we perceive it.  That is what has made this country the greatest guarantor of civil rights in the history of man.

Capitalism is anathema to liberal collectivists. Why?  Because it rewards individualism.

We are rapidly losing our true civil rights due to the extortionate influence of the liberal collectivists and their insidious imposition of mediocrity and characterless on the individual.  Bringing all human beings down to the lowest common denominator and making us slaves to commonness is not an exercise in respect for the individual or that individual’s civil rights.

This country was built by individuals not by collectivist cutouts.  That’s why the best government is that government which governs least.

That is why conservatives believe so passionately and compassionately in individual privacy rights; the right to full ownership of real property, the right to control our intellectual property, the right to fail or to succeed, the right to the benefits of our own labor and most importantly, the right of choice for every individual.  And that includes both private and commercial choices.

If I as the individual owner of an apartment house choose to exclude certain individuals based on behavior that I find distasteful, that is my right.  If I own a business and choose to hire and/or serve only those whose ethnicity I share, that is my right.  If I choose to smoke and allow my customers and employees to smoke, that is my right.  If I choose to drive without a seatbelt, that is my right.

If you choose to open your home or business to anybody that comes along that is your right.  If you choose not to smoke, you have the right to choose to do business where smoking is prohibited.  If you choose to wear a seatbelt good for you.

You see, if I exercise my right to make individual choices, you lose none of yours.  But if you collectively determine what I as a business owner or a consumer can or cannot do then you have taken away my rights.  The fact that I serve or employ large numbers of people does not mean that my property belongs to the public.

Individual rights must prevail over collective dictates if we are to have a future.  It is simply a matter of logic that the earth is better off when individuals control its inventory.  No collective ownership of any part of the “environment” has proven successful when measured against private ownership.  It’s far better that I have the right to take care of my part and you have the same right to do whatever you wish with your part.

I always laugh when the “environmentalists” pull out the old chestnut “but what you do with your property affects my property”.  Well, of course.  That’s Civics 101.  But their solution is where the silliness comes in.  They want to tell us how to live on our own property so we don’t affect their property.  Did I miss something here?  Doesn’t that affect my property?

I can hear the “environmentalists” out there crying.  But what about “global warming” and socialized medicine?  Its time for them to find some new material to use in their intimidation schemes.  There is no man made “global warming” and the claims that the government can provide better health care are pure fiction. All of this scare mongering is for one reason. They are afraid of the individual, afraid of  free thought, and afraid of self sufficiency. Only through coercive government tyranny can they overcome their weakness.

Liberal collectivists are also fond of saying that my right to swing my fist stops at their nose.  Not true.  When they stick that nose into my privacy and deny me my civil rights I have the right to swing my fist at, on and through that nose.

There’s No Place Like Home (For Politicians)

How we can solve our problems!

Don A. Bright

No matter to whom I talk, I find that Democrats, Republicans and Independents – whether liberal or conservative – have one complaint in common when talking about the government. Nobody that I know likes the influence of special interest groups and/or lobbyists on our nation’s lawmakers. Everybody (except members of the special interest group involved) wants to say good by and good riddance to these vampires that are sucking the lifeblood out of our Republic. So how can we rid ourselves of this nest of thieves?

I think I have an idea that would severely reduce the influence of this dangerous influence on our representative form of government. But first I want to name what are, in my opinion, the five most reprehensible and un-American special interest groups in America. (Un-American in the sense that their agendas are in direct opposition to our intended and historic American system and thus the American way.)

Here is my list:

1. By far the worst special interest group is the education lobby. They have lobbied for and wasted more money on the most loathsome and failed education establishment in our history;

2. Next in line would be Big Labor. Big labor has caused more job losses than it has job gains. Its goals can be summed up in one word: mediocrity. When a group as powerful as Big Labor (it spends hundreds of millions of dollars in each general election, far more than all business corporations combined) can and does control productivity (the number of goods produced per unit of cost) it controls economic growth. You might note that the inflation rate has gone down and stayed more stable as union membership has declined;

3. My third special interest group on the most dangerous list would be the environmental lobby. Never have our private property rights – the cornerstone of all of our freedoms- been so violated as they are being violated today. Ever since the old socialist/fascist advocates kidnapped the conservation movement they have consistently pummeled our American freedoms and rights in their quest to force the former on us. Worse yet, their largess is mostly made up of taxpayer funds.

4. Government workers are fourth on my list. This is one of my pet peeves. Most of these people – whose salaries we pay – vote for bigger and bigger government and many do so to increase their own wealth. If I had my way, I would take voting privileges away from any person feeding from the public trough. It definitely brings up enough conflict of interest flags to give it consideration.

5. And finally I believe Big Business belongs on my list. I never thought I would say this, but there are simply too many beds being shared by corporate bigwigs and Congress. This must stop!

So how to stop this anomalous cancer that has taken our democratic powers from us?

Here’s my idea. Washington, D.C. reminds me of a giant ant pile. A bunch of creepy crawlers that do nothing but work for and protect each other. Any “outsider” (citizen) will be attacked en mass by the establishment. So I say let’s get them out of the Capitol.

It’s time for the next amendment to our citizen’s owners manual, the Constitution. I propose an amendment be passed that will require all elected persons at the federal level to spend a minimum of 275 days every calendar year in their home districts. That would only give them 90 days to hobnob, trade votes, get tanked or sleep with each other. It would also reduce the quantity of the D. C. water they drink, which should make the whole thing worth it.

Can you imagine the “adjustment” in thinking this would bring about on the part of our governing elite if they must look their constituents in the eye and answer for their decisions nine months out of the year? Wow! And how this would change special interest power! Just think of some lobbyist trying to visit 535 different locations to push his goods?

Before you say this is impossible, listen up. We have the technology right now to connect all these people in an almost identical way to that they now have. With closed circuit television, faxes, picture phones, conference calls and who knows what else is around the corner it would be quite possible. The only problem with the system as far as our reps and senators are concerned is they may have to start thinking on their own for once. Can this be bad?

Any time a situation comes up requiring their returning to Washington outside the ninety allowable days they would simply declare an emergency and head back. An emergency, however, must be declared through the votes of a super majority of 75%. All emergencies must last no longer than 60 days without another 75% vote extending it.

Any and all trips to Washington whether they be business, family visits, or sightseeing, etc., would be counted against the 90-day allowable quota. Every day  spent in Washington by any member of either house outside the 90-day allowable would result in a forfeit of one weeks pay.

Nothing would be more fun – at least in my opinion – than to see the east end of 535 humble and slump shouldered muck-a-mucks heading west.

And the lobbyists? More fodder for the ash heap of history, I say.

The only concern I have about this whole thing is that, while it would raise the IQ level in D. C., it would, as a result, lower the IQ average of the general population. But I’m willing to take that risk. You?

Watch Your Tail

  Don A. Bright

 

A man and his dog have been inseparable for the many years of the dog’s life. Once, on a hunting trip a snow storm stranded them deep in the woods. Although the man had a sleeping bag into which they could both share warmth at night and a canteen of water he had packed no food for the trip.

Concerned about the dog more than himself the man assured the dog that he would provide food for him. In order to accomplish this the man cut a piece of the dog’s tail off, heated it over the fire and fed it to the dog. Question: Could this program be sustained over a long period? Of course not.

The above tale describes socialism perfectly. Can the concept and practice of socialism sustain itself? Of course not.

Who suffered the most in the story of the man and his dog? Of course the dog did. Who paid more than planned when they left for the trip? Of course the dog did. Was the dog better off then he was before the trip? Of course not. Was the man guilty of winning the dog’s vote, as it were, out of compassion? If he did he was either ignorant, vain or extremely diabolical. And that gets us to the point of this commentary.

One has to accept the fact that our President and his liberal sycophants in congress fall under the third option above, extremely diabolical. (Although, as is the case in all liberals, vanity would play a large role.) These people are not ignorant. Even if they are not the straightest nail in the bin, they know – just like in the man and dog story – that socialism isn’t sustainable. These people are more interested in staying in power than they are in what’s best for American citizens. Diabolical? I can’t think of a better example. Vain? Same answer. Ignorant? You can’t be that diabolical without adequate brain-power.

As Obama and his troops set about destroying the best health care system in the history of man by socializing it they are very aware of the destructive force they are bring upon the American people. They have to be because understanding socialism at this point in history is as simple, if not simpler, than the story I began with. Here’s why:

Socialism has one very empirically evident fault. Is it logical that a government can take your money through taxes and save you money on your medical bills? In fact, that is turning logic on its head. Any – I repeat – any program run by the government is operating on a false premise; that it will cheapen things or make things on the market cost less.

Let’s examine why socialism is nothing but a pipedream cloaked in diabolical dishonesty.

If a person finds himself without the money to pay his medical bills and turns to the government to pay for them he is handing his tail to the bureaucrats so they can use a huge chunk of it to pay themselves and send dribbles of it back to him. When the government pays for your goods or services it can do so only if you give them the money to do so.

For every dollar you are now paying to a medical caregiver you will have to send at least two dollars to the government for them to pay it. While the proponents of the ponzi scam of socialism will have you believe so, the government cannot work like an insurance company. In any socialized program the government must – or always does – make it available to non premium paying customers. An insurance company is responsible only to its subscribers and thus reduces its overhead.

Another problem with government “give-away” programs is the complete lack of oversight. None of our politicians holding office would cut the services of the program for fear of losing votes. The way they handle hurdles along the road is to ignore them and throw more of the money they have taken from us at the program. This, in reality, raises the price of medical service to the individual through more taxes.

The old saying about getting a free lunch goes into play here. If a friend told you he would buy you lunch but only if you give him 10 dollars, not order anything over four dollars and also pay the tip I think you would just say no thank you because it would be much cheaper to pay for your own lunch.

Many years ago I debated a woman from England who thought she had been getting “free” medical care. During my research I discovered a little secret about the “free” care she had been getting. Her main defense of her system was the claim that for a “few schillings a week” all her medical care was provided for her. The secret was that the” few schillings” a week paid for only about 10% of the health care system. The British government had to pass a VAT (value added tax) of 33 % on all retail sales in order to pay for the system. In other words a $21,000 automobile would cost her $28,000. Of course the government over there did not inform the people that this was needed to pay for the health care system. Hardly a “free” program.

I promise you that the same thing will happen in America. No matter what socialized medicine will end up costing the answer will always be to pour more money down the government-dug hole.

Does the British healthcare system work today? You be the judge: (With thanks to Merrill Matthews at Town Hall.)

“…anyone who reads the English press will find a different message, including waiting lines, angry patients, rationed and often subquality care. Consider these recent news stories about England’s National Health Service (NHS) quoted directly from the British press.”

“Twice Katie asked for a [Pap] smear test, but was told she was “too young” to need one. Now 24, she is dying from cervical cancer, one of many young women who have fallen victim to a scandalous change in health policy.” (London’s Daily Mail, June)

“A man with terminal cancer has been refused a drug by the NHS that could extend his life — despite offering to pay part of the cost himself. . . . David Swain’s offer to meet the monthly £2,000 cost of Erbitux was refused, he said, because the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [a government body] ruled it was too expensive.” (Yorkshire Post, March, emphasis added)

“Health service dentists have been forced to go on holiday or spend time on the golf course this month despite millions of patients being denied dental care. . . . Many [dentists] have fulfilled their annual work quotas allotted by the National Health Service and have been turning patients away because they are not paid to do extra work. This is despite the fact that more than 7m[illion] people in Britain are unable to find an NHS dentist.” (The Times of London, March)

If you want more horror stories go to The Problems with Socialized Health Care at www.liberty-page.com

USE OF CoQ10 TO TREAT MALIGNANCIES

USE OF CoQ10 TO TREAT MALIGNANCIES

 By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.

December 23, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

Biochemist, Dr. Karl Folkers Ph.D, was employed by Merck where he discovered vitamin B12 and learned how to make a synthetic version of it that sold all over the world ending pernicious anemia. He was considered for a Nobel Prize but did not win this honor.

He had become very interested in CoQ10 which Merck could not pursue because it was not patentable as a natural substance. Dr. Folkers had learned that CoQ10 was able to slow the progression of muscular dystrophy. After leaving Merck he took a position as professor at the University of Texas in about 1965.

CoQ10 is found in every cell in the body. Animal species have exhibited a direct correlation between CoQ10 levels and longevity.[1] The use of statin drugs produces significant falls in CoQ blood levels which may be the reason for the rising incidence of heart failure as statin drugs are widely used in the U.S. to lower cholesterol. Administration of CoQ10 improves energy output by the mitochondria of the cell. This improved energy output from CoQ10 therapy has proven to be quite valuable in treating neurologic disorders[2] such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, post-polio syndrome, Alzheimer’s Disease, and strokes. While at the U. of Texas Dr. Folkers encouraged a cardiologist, Dr. Peter Langsjoen, to use CoQ10 to treat congestive heart failure with wonderful results. Dr. Langsjoen stated ” The clinical experience with CoQ10 is nothing short of dramatic. It is reasonable to believe that the entire field of medicine should be reevaluated in light of this growing knowledge”. Some patients at the U. of Texas with heart failure received CoQ10 but this therapy did not become adopted as a standard approach by conventional physicians. Dr. Folkers followed the course of 6 patients, who had cancer, who were taking CoQ10 for congestive heart failure until 1993. Four of them had lung cancer and 2 had breast cancer. All 6 experienced remissions of cancer thought to be due to CoQ10 therapy. Dr. Folkers recommended the use of 500 mg. of CoQ daily in patients with malignancies.

Dr. Folkers began to raise money to pursue his dream of using CoQ10 to treat malignancies. Folkers persuaded one of his financial backers, who had developed small cell carconoma of the lung with widespread metastasis, to try CoQ10 by pointing out that CoQ10 would do no harm and it might help. His oncologist had advised him he had less than a year to live. He began to feel better and had no sign of metastases one year later. Fifteen years after the cancer diagnosis he remained well and free of metastases. The only therapy he received was CoQ10.

In 1980 Dr. Folkers funded a trial of CoQ10 for breast cancer conducted by Dr. Kund Lockwood in Denmark. Dr. Lockwood treated 2 patients with breast cancer one with 300 mg.of CoQ10 daily and the other with 360 mg. daily. Both recovered.

Dr. William Judy of Bradenton, Fl. received funding from Dr. Folkers to treat prostate cancer with CoQ10. Cancer of the prostate is typically hormone dependent at it’s onset and is effectively treated then by hormone inhibition. However, after two to five years it often becomes independent of hormone therapy and no amount of hormone inhibition at that stage is beneficial.

Dr. Judy found 30 patients with hormone independent prostate cancer and treated them with 500 mg. of Coenzyme Q10 daily. Fourteen of the 15 who had no metastases to bone or lung proceeded to have their PSA values return to normal. Of the 15 patients who did have metastases to bone and lung when they started CoQ10 8 saw their PSA results return to normal suggesting improvement.. Dr. Judy then treated 6 patients with prostate cancer and elevated PSA values with CoQ10 and all 6 had their elevated PSA values return to normal after 120 days of CoQ10 therapy (500 mg.) daily. Political problems prevented him from publishing these results and Dr. Folkers death in 1998 has terminated all interest in CoQ10 as a therapy for cancer which is unfortunate.

Dr. Judy suggests a way to improve the absorption of CoQ10 capsules into the blood stream. Put the capsules of CoQ10 in hot tea which melts them. CoQ10 needs fat to get improved absorption. Add a teaspoon of coconut oil preferably but butter will also work. Drink the tea warm or hot.

The lack of interest in CoQ10 by the pharmaceutical companies as a cancer therapy is caused by their inability to patent it. This should have no effect on patients looking for a safe cancer therapy that seems to work quite well. CoQ10 can be found in health food stores and is available in a readily absorbable melt form from Natural Health Team at 1-800-416-2806.

I am deeply grateful to biochemist Wayne Martin for providing me with this information about CoQ10 and cancer. Mr. Martin was a good friend of Dr. Folkers for many years.

Footnotes:

1 Lass A Comparisons of Coenxyme Q bound to mitochondrial membrane proteins among different mammalian species. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 27 (1/2):220-26, 1999
2 Perlmutter David Brain Recovery.com pg 22, 55, 70-71, 91-2, 113-4, 144-5

© 2003 Dr. James Howenstine – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

---

Dr. James A. Howenstine is a board certified specialist in internal medicine who spent 34 years caring for office and hospital patients. Curiosity sparked a 4 year study of natural health products when 5 of his patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis were able to discontinue the use of methotrexate (chemotherapy agent) after trying an extract of New Zealand mussels for the therapy of severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Howenstine is convinced that natural products are safer, more effective and less expensive than pharmaceutical drugs. This research led to the publication of his book ‘A Physicians Guide To Natural Health Products That Work’. This book and the recommended health products are available from www.naturalhealthteam.com and by calling 1-800-416-2806 U.S.A.  

Dr Howenstine can be reached by E-Mail atjimhow@racsa.co.cr