Blog Archives

I'LL HUFF AND I'LL PUFF AND I'LL PRETEND THAT I DIDN'T INTERVIEW YOU

5/22/2012

That's what I figure Huffington Post's columnist Andrew Reinbach was saying to himself when he wrote today's column smearing those of us who are shining a light on UN Agenda 21. Reinbach interviewed me for his article. He interviewed me for 45 minutes. He baited me; asking if I was afraid that I would be smeared as a 'Bircher' for my position in opposition to the biggest inventory and control plan in the history of the world. I said that I wasn't afraid, and that I was speaking the truth. I said it didn't much matter to me that I might not agree with others in regard to other issues. After we were all done with our interview I asked him if he had recorded it and he said yes. I told him that I had done the same. I'm guessing that this is why he didn't use me as a source for his article: he knew that I would post the whole interview if he misquoted me.

In fact I didn't just record it. I video'd it. Here it is and here's his article. See why he didn't want to mention that he'd had an hour-long interview with a reasonable, intelligent, professional liberal Democrat who refused to have words put into her mouth by a biased reporter?

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp-Geyq53Hc
The article:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/agenda-21-sustainability-_b_1523118.html

WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS?

5/3/2012

I just spoke to a group in the next county over--flew back at 4 am from another state just so I could be on time to speak for the Marin Coalition. Although they had invited me, there had been some contention between the board members as to whether or not they wanted me, and I received an extremely rude and accusatory email from a board member who was ignorant about UN Agenda 21 and just wanted to fight. I considered refusing to come but I had already committed to it and the majority of the board wanted me. So I went.

There were just 50 or so people there.

There were some rude interruptions from the group as I spoke but I dealt with them and went on. At the end of my speech a woman in the audience accused me of not having integrity because I 'took money' from the state for years as an employee even though I 'knew what was going on with Agenda 21.' She said that because I supported the use of eminent domain I was a hypocrite. I responded by noting her total ignorance because she had obviously arrived at the event via a public road and this was certainly acquired by eminent domain. I explained that there is a difference between eminent domain used for a public use and the use of eminent domain to choose winners and losers in redevelopment, and in transportation tax subsidies used to pay for for-profit mixed use projects and infrastructure supporting it. I also said that I was proud of my career and had absolutely nothing to apologize for.

In fact her comments, which were extensive, aggressive, hateful, and incorrect were a personal attack on me. She, a member of this group's board, did not dispute any of the factual information I had presented in my speech. Instead she attacked me. This is a technique used to chill free speech by those who are trying to shut down the truth. No one in the entire group said a word as we sparred. I was disgusted. She was the only African-American person in the room. I mention this because I wonder if it had any impact on this group of white, middle class, middle aged people who sat silently while a guest who had traveled thousands of miles to speak at their invitation was abused in front of them. Did they think they'd be infringing on her free speech rights if they told her that she was out of line? Apparently as she was leaving the event she told others that I am 'racist.' Maybe I should have accused her of gay-bashing. Or bullying.

UPDATE:
The woman who attacked me, Regina Carey, is on the Democratic Central Committee for Marin County. When she was running for that position, according to the voter's guidebook, she identified herself as a civil rights activist and said her occupation was: Community Volunteer. She is president of the Social Justice Center of Marin. Wonder if she had an 'agenda?' Funny thing--I was attacked by a Democratic Central Committee in Virginia--they said I wasn't really a Democrat and that I was just pretending to be one so that the Tea Party would like me. Here's my blog post on it. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/1/post/2011/11/what-the-democrats-in-virginia-have-to-say-about-rosa.html

Guess what? In yet another disgusting display of adventures into human nature we have the true story of the XYZ army during the XYZ War. Story goes that the XYZ, not wishing to use more soldiers than necessary to guard their prisoners of war, decided to cull out the independent, active prisoners and place them under guard. The others, the passive ones, hardly needed any guarding at all---they went along with the program. So, what did the XYZ find when they separated the two groups? That a mere 5% of the prisoners were the independent, active types. Five percent.

There are 300,000,000 people in the US. Five percent is 15,000,000. Let's conservatively figure half of that for those who aren't going to just sit around and let themselves be Delphi'd in consensus meetings, pushed around by their City Councils, told that they have to agree to lose their private property rights to redevelopment projects, shamed into watching while their neighbors are bullied by Community Oriented Police measures, and flattered into mandatory volunteer programs for local non-profits designed to dictate their life choices.

Yes, that's about SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE in the United States. That's seven times the population of San Francisco. About twice the population of Chicago. About equal to New York. Remember that when you go to a 'visioning meeting' put on by the regional transportation authority and local government. You are just one of millions of people across the nation who are standing up every day and saying 'We will not be bullied into silence. We object to being told that we are a threat to the planet if we live in a house and drive a car. We know that this is just a smokescreen for the plan to run a total information network designed for maximum control of our lives. This is the biggest public relations stunt in the history of the world, and we are not going to go passively.' And remember: Seven and a half million is only two and a half percent--it is half of the number of people who would be active and have the guts to object. A small percentage, but a big number. Will you be part of the Resistance?

Speak up, speak out, reach out to those who will be bitterly disappointed to see that the vision of a perfect world of no carbon emissions and smiling people is a sham. A manipulation. An artificial construct designed to direct whole populations to a pre-determined outcome. The obedient, passive, unquestioning mass of consumers ready to turn on their neighbors and report. Is that what we want for our going forward?

Do you have the guts to stand up when you see something that is wrong? Or are you going to just go along to get along? Decide now. WHAT DOES IT TAKE?

You must see this...really.

5/1/2012

Please take a look at this fantastic series of overlapping government officials and corporations. I have not verified all of these but this is definitely worth your time.
http://endthelie.com/2012/04/18/18-venn-diagrams-showing-how-corrupted-american-democracy-really-is/#axzz1teotObuF

Fun with statistics...Delphi IN ACTION

5/1/2012

This is a fun one. A survey made March 12-30, 2012, by Yale and George Mason Universities asked this question:

How much do you support or oppose signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by 2050?

They asked 1,008 people. First I'll tell you what the Center for American Progress (an ICLEI supporter and partner in UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development) reported as the 'result.'

The Center for American Progress reported that 65% of the respondents supported this REQUIRED huge reduction in US carbon dioxide by 2050.

Now I'll tell you what the data showed. Nineteen percent strongly supported this international treaty concept. The other forty six percent 'somewhat' supported it. But it was reported as 'support.'

Now I'll tell you what the title of this article is: The Death of Public Support for Global Warming Action Is Greatly Exaggerated. Interesting, right? This article is designed as spin.

Another survey question asks, in a Delphi-style way, "People disagree on whether the US should reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its own, or make reductions only if other countries do too. Which of the statements comes closest to your own point of view?" And then the question answers are ranged from the US should do it without influence by other countries or it should follow the lead of other countries. Do you see the Delphi? They set this up so that if you don't know anything about this you'll just want to see the US make 'independent decisions' not influenced by other countries and you'll 'vote' for that. And, predictably, 63% of respondents did just that when they said they wanted the US to reduce its GHG regardless of what other countries do. They didn't question the whole premise in the first place did they?

This is classic Delphi. Be aware.

I'LL HUFF AND I'LL PUFF AND I'LL PRETEND THAT I DIDN'T INTERVIEW YOU

WHAT DOES IT TAKE? DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS?

You must see this...really.

Fun with statistics...Delphi IN ACTION

And the winner is...

Archives

Categories