By popular demand, we created this forum to cover almost any topic your heart desires. The Forum name, "Open Mike" refers to the tradition that some comedy and music clubs have of offering all comers the opportunity to perform live impromptu at their establishments, with any material they come up with that is consistent with the theme and policies of that organization (in our case, the Mission statement in "Read Me" section), We'll even consider stuff not consistent, if you can persuade us that changes are needed.
Note to readers/posters: Reader comments are in chronological, indented sequence, with the newest ones on the higher-numbered pages below. You must be registered on this site to post. You may have to scroll/page down to get to where you want to be.
Six Neglected Issues of Agenda 21
We seem to be drowning in a sea of endless political fights and issues that affect our actions every day. Where do these issues come from? Who has time to think them up? Who is advocating them? Recently a local activist asked me to name six issues that would surprise most people to learn are directly connected to Agenda 21.
Agenda 21, according to the Planners, the Greens, and Progressives (I know, I repeat myself) is just an “innocuous 20 year old document that has no connection to local planning.” Moreover, they tell us it is just a guideline for conservation and "smart growth" of our communities. Nothing more. In fact, in their own words, they assure us that, "Sustainable communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care is accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives."
It all sounds so innocent. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well, putting these plans into place is where the problems begin. Here are six neglected issue that are rarely connected to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (especially when we are assured that Agenda 21 has nothing to do with local, state or federal government policy).
Issue 1: Global Warming/Climate Change
It has been so discredited in the true scientific community that proponents have become almost silly in their continued attempts to push it. Why don't they stop, even to question if their science is sound? They instead use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly questionable? It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate Change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate change foot on our throats.
But don't take my word for it. I'll let them speak for themselves:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart (Former Canadian Minister of the Environment)
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation)
"It doesn't matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true." Paul Watson (Co-Founder of Green Peace.)
Issue 2: Fear of over population
The fear of overpopulation is the central driving force behind nearly every Sustainable policy initiative. The fact is, in developed nations population is actually going down. The only real growth in the US population in recent years has been from immigration, legal or otherwise. There is a major divide in the Green movement over the issue of population and how to handle it. Some in the Sierra Club advocate that U.S. borders be closed to stop population growth here. Most conservatives would agree. Illegals, they say, overcrowd our cities and damage our way of life, our environment, and use up our natural resources.
The majority of environmentalists, however, insist that the borders must be open to allow as many to immigrate here as possible. They argue that the U.S. has a greater ability to control them and protect the environment than if we left them in third world countries. That’s because the Greens already have a stranglehold over our nation’s industry through massive green regulations.
In the face of their fear of overpopulation, however, studies have shown that there is no world wide over population crisis. In fact one study insists that we could put the entire population of the world in an area the size of Texas with a population density of Paris, France. Over population, and its accompanying environmental degradation, is a problem primarily in poor countries where the poor are deprived by government to improve their conditions. Nations that refuse to legalize private property ownership for the masses, for example, are a primary reason for growing poverty. Meanwhile, Sustainablists work to keep these nations from developing or increasing energy use, thereby keeping them poor. Green regulations stop the building of infrastructure. They panic at the idea of increased energy use in dev eloping nations. Instead of working to solve the real problems – the root of poverty- they exploit the excuse of over population and advocate enforcing polices to drastically reduce populations. China’s brutal one child policy of forced abortions and sterilization has become their model.
Do you think I’m joking? There consider these quotes from the Sustainablists:
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." David Brower (Sierra Club)
"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible." United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment.
Issue 3: The goal of Agenda 21 is the destruction of the free market system
We have heard statement after statement from the UN; from members of Congress; the news media; and from Hollywood, all deriding the free market system as evil, corrupt and a tool of the rich to hold down the poor. So now, they are suddenly worried about the poor – if it leads to their ability to raid our bank accounts. So are they really worried about protecting the environment – or honoring the tactics of Jesse James?
Redistribution of wealth is behind every policy that comes out of the UN, and now the Obama Administration as well. The EPA is the attack dog to shut down entire industries like coal. It has become very difficult to operate a manufacturing business in the US, and nearly impossible to start a new one. Environmental protection is always the excuse, even when Obama's own State Department says the Keystone Pipeline is not an environmental threat. Just recently, radical greens wielding torches, demonstrated outside the home of the head of the Keystone pipeline company. Visions of the terror of the Dark Agenda?
At the UN's Rio + 20 Summit held last year, the idea of "Zero Economic Growth" was advocated - just to keep things fair. It was stated that even the building of new roads upsets the status quo and disrupts a well ordered society. Such idiotic ideas are the driving force behind Sustainable Development. Again, images of the Dark Ages come to mind.
Again, not my words, let them tell you themselves:
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land." Dave Foreman, (Earth First).
"Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control" Professor Maurice King (Population Control Advocate)
"We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources...and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society... because the free market has proven itself incapable of doing this." Plannersnetwork.org Statement or Principles. the American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principles.
Issue 4: Cheap Energy is the enemy of the Earth
To the average person the drive to stop any ability to obtain cheap energy makes no sense. People are hurting economically. Jobs are lost. Energy costs are skyrocketing. Any attempt to drill oil, fracking of shale gas, and mining coal are all vigorously blocked by government and green policy. Yet the government spends billions of dollars on "alternative energy" such as wind and solar, which provides less than 3% of our energy needs. Why? What is the motivation to put such shackles on the US economic engine? The excuse is that energy use drives up CO2 emissions and accelerates global warming - the excuse necessary to "harmonize" the US into the socialist, Sustainable global noose.
But, according to some anti-energy advocates, the fear of cheap energy goes beyond environmental protection - energy availability helps build wealth for individuals and removes them from the rolls of the dependent - the true goal of sustainable policy.
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy is the worst thing that could ever happen to the planet." Prof. Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University).
"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute).
"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." Jeremy Rifkin (Greenhouse Crisis Foundation).
Issue 5: Common Core
Many people see the reorganization of the public school issue as separate from Agenda 21. It's not. Those who are promoting what they call the Agenda for the 21st Century understand that it is going to be a long drawn out process. To reform a nation that has been created on the ideals of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty into one that unquestioningly accepts government top down control as an absolute necessity will take time. They must wait out those of us who were educated in the old system, who were taught that we were born with our rights and that government's job is to protect those rights. The sustainable system says government will grant us our rights.
To enforce such a radical turn around of our society requires that the children be indoctrinated to accept it. The effort started in earnest in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration through the Department of Education and programs including Goals 2000, School To Work and Workforce Development Boards. These programs set children on the path to accepting top down control as schools became mainly training centers to create the workers of tomorrow. The original American education system effectively provided an overall academic education from which students could choose their own futures. No longer. Today, the new curriculum has morphed into what is called Common Core. It’s a State run central curriculum that revamps schools into little more than job training and indoctrination centers.
Because, you see, today’s public education system is also designed to strip the children of their attitudes, values and beliefs that parents may have instilled, and indoctrinate them into accepting global values - global citizenship and a global economy based on the sustainable agenda. Little of American civics and history is taught in today’s classroom. But text books contain whole chapters on the Five Pillars of Islam, while ignoring the 10 Commandments of Christianity. The children are feed an unending diet of the evils of capitalism; the selfishness of individualism, and the social justice of redistribution of wealth. It punishes students for possessing individuality and is designed to eliminate such natural human tendencies. That is the "common" in Common Core. Common values, common goals, common future. Don't rock the boat of a well ordered society.
Common Core is the curriculum necessary for the acceptance and implementation of Agenda 21. And today nearly every adult up to the age of 40 has gone thought this indoctrination, trained to accept a future chosen for them by someone else.
The system was fully outlined in a very detailed letter to Hillary Clinton from Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy in November or 1992, immediately after Bill. Clinton was elected President.
Said Tucker: “First, a vision of the kind of national – not federal – human resources development system the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone…” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state, and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”
Issue 6: Healthcare, Sustainable Medicine
How is healthcare connected to Agenda 21? Simply Google "Sustainable Medicine" and you will find more than 5,850,000 English language references to the subject. Read through the ideas expressed there and you will find nearly every provision of Obamacare. An expert on Sustainable Medicine, the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman, put it this way: "Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die." Sustainable medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations, but to "humans" in their "settlements." Sustainable medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration that introduced Agenda 21 is that all humans must live in harmony with nature. It means rationing healthcare, low technology for health care treatment and emphasis on medical care not cure.
These are the issues that are not usually discussed or connected to Agenda 21. Americans must understand and connect these dots to every day policy so they can understand the root and long term goals of policies that are affecting their personal lives. Agenda 21 is the “common core” and it has already invaded every corner of our society. Our battle cry must be to stop this monster in 2014 or watch freedom perish.
Written by Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, who is one of the nation’s leading experts on Agenda 21 and its assault on property rights and personal freedom. He is author of the book “Now Tell Me I was Wrong” and editor of the monthly newsletter The DeWeese Report.
The Employment Development Department reported Friday that California's unemployment rate, which hit a high of 12.4 percent in 2010, dropped to 8 percent in February. California had added 336,000 non-agricultural jobs in the previous 12 months.
The bad news is that despite regaining those lost jobs, California still has one of the nation's highest jobless rates, surpassed by only a handful of other states, and it's still well above the national average of 6.7 percent.
How can that be?
It's because over more than seven years of economic decline and recovery, California's population has grown and therefore so has its potential workforce, and the unemployment rate is the percentage of the labor force that doesn't have jobs.
California's lowest unemployment rate in recent history was 4.8 percent for a few months in late 2006, when about 850,000 of the state's 17.8 million available workers were unemployed.
In the 7-1/2 years since then, California's labor force has grown by 800,000-plus to 18.6 million but the state has only 193,000 more people employed, leaving 640,000 more Californians without jobs than there were in 2006. Hence, with 1.5 million unemployed, the state has a much-higher unemployment rate now than it did then.
Two other factors also round out California's employment picture, and undercut somewhat the positive news of recent job gains.
One is labor force participation - the percentage of Californians of working age who either are working or seeking work. That's just 62.2 percent, the lowest rate in more than three decades, according to EDD. Were more Californians between the ages of 16 and 64 to join the labor force and seek work, the state's unemployment rate would be higher.
The second is what the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U-6" - the percentage of the labor force that's not only unemployed, but involuntarily working part-time or "marginally attached" to the labor force. BLS calls it "labor underutilization."
For 2013, California had the nation's second highest U-6 rate, 17.3 percent. And in Los Angeles County, which has more than a quarter of the state's population, it was 19.8 percent.
I agree that Mark Levin SHOULD be on at some time during the week day, He's a great asset to talk radio. I do like the addition of Rush though, but they could easily drop some of that junk from 6 pm on.
A Wall Street adviser in a recent memo to his clients said that the “actual” unemployment rate in the United States is 37.2 percent.
Obviously, this has many asking whether this is indeed the case. In short, it isn’t. But of course this requires some explanation.
David John Marotta’s memo, which was picked up by the Washington Examiner, stated that unemployment is much worse than what is being reported by the federal government.
Marotta’s claim is based primarily on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data on the current labor force participation rate, which is about 62.8 percent:
The above graph represents the adult, non-military and non-jailed population that is currently employed or actively seeking work.
But how did Marotta arrive at that 37.2 percent figure? Simple: He subtracted the current labor force participation rate from 100 (“100” representing full labor force participation), AEI’s James Pethokoukis reported. If the current labor force participation rate is 62.8 percent, then that means 37.2 percent of the civilian, noninstitutional population is “unemployed.”
Obviously, this does not give us an accurate calculation of unemployment.
Marotta in his calculation includes everyone: Retirees, adolescents, college students and stay-at-home mothers. In other words, he includes people who would ordinarily be excluded from what we refer to as the labor force.
The Wall Street adviser’s figure “is absolutely ridiculous and tremendously overstates labor market weakness. A total joke,” Pethokoukis said in a fiery blog post. “Using Marotta’s ‘logic,’ maybe the ‘real’ unemployment rate is merely the share of … the civilian noninstitutional without a job. That comes out to a whopping 44.5%!”
Now this isn’t to say that the official unemployment rate, which currently rests at 6.7 percent, doesn’t seriously understate the reality of the unemployment situation in the United States.
Indeed, as noted every month by TheBlaze, the U-6 unemployment rate, considered a broader measure of actual unemployment in the U.S., regularly posts a much higher figure than the “official” unemployment rate.
The U-6 rate, which includes not just the unemployed, but also the underemployed and the discouraged, currently sits are around 13.1 percent.
So although it is absolutely accurate to say that the commonly reported figure on unemployment in the United States regularly downplays “real” unemployment, saying that the “actual” unemployment rests somewhere around 37 percent is highly — dubious.
As Newspapers Struggle, Los Angeles Gets Another Daily
He is banking on the fact that the city is ready to embrace a newspaper with a different political viewpoint that is "right of center," he said.
But what works for the Orange County Register, a paper that for decades has been known for its libertarian editorial pages, may be a tougher sell in a liberal-leaning Los Angeles.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/newspapers-los-angeles-daily/2014/04/16/i...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
In a 2006 interview, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said the Constitution is “basically about” one word — “democracy” — that appears in neither that document nor the Declaration of Independence. Democracy is America’s way of allocating political power. The Constitution, however, was adopted to confine that power in order to “secure the blessings of” that which simultaneously justifies and limits democratic government — natural liberty.
The fundamental division in U.S. politics is between those who take their bearings from the individual’s right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom, and those whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.
LA may be Liberal, but it has more Conservatives and Libertarians than most American metropolitan areas, simply because it is so large. So, there is an untapped market. Also, the LA Times is so slanted that people can't trust it regardless of their political affiliations.
Scary. The fool is a Supreme Court "Justice," yet he seems to have no idea that we are supposedly a constitutional republic.
You link points to an excellent article, well worth the read as it articulates the real basis and philosophy of the Declaration of Independence.
Amen, Patriot David. I put it on our Constitutional forum also.
i hope this new paper make it , it's should do well , being that yes , many are sick of the left wing loon times