|
Movement Politics |
||
|
The other day there was a program about September 11, 2001 on A & E. Since they were following the official story line, most of the information was trash but I did pick up one very interesting piece of information. Mohammed Atta was a city planner - an urban engineer. He was educated in Germany and the plot for 9-11 was supposedly hatched in Germany. The Wikipedia biography says the following: In Hamburg, Atta worked on a thesis exploring the history of Aleppo's urban landscapes. It explored the general themes of the conflict between Arab civilization and modernity. Atta criticized how the modern skyscrapers and development projects in Aleppo were disrupting the fabric of that city by blocking community streets and altering the skyline. There were reports that he worked as a car salesman while studying, to help pay for tuition. Why this piece of information is significant is because follows the same theme as the United Nations ‘Green’ agenda as codified in Agenda 21. In fact, the agenda is so extreme that they actually plan on ‘rewilding’ large sections of the United States - herding people into ‘sustainable communities’. It is global central planning for storage of people - putting the people in the zoo and letting the animals roam free.
It is the belief of many people who have researched this - including myself, that terrorism is being used to move people off their property. The terrorism includes fire, weather modification for floods, hurricanes, tsunamis and possibly tornados and bombing major buildings. For the scoffers: "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."
—Former Defense Secretary William S. Cohen Agenda 21 was never been presented to the American people and no mention of it is ever on the mainstream media. It is however, supported by the U.S. Government as evidenced by information on the websites of the State Department, the EPA, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Dept. of Commerce - NOAA, Interior Dept, etc. mostly under the names of ‘smart growth, sustainable communities/development, or some variation on the theme of urban and environmental planning. Even the Department of Education is supporting it through the Globe program which is using school children to assist the United Nations to map the environmental assets and conditions of this nation. The way this is being implemented is very deceptive. It is being done through appointed (i.e. unelected) boards, councils and commissions (this is how the communist system works in the Soviet Union) with grant money from the government, foundations and corporations. The laws and programs from congress and government entities call for the creation of the boards, councils and commissions comprised of 'stakeholders' - then they implement the Agenda working directly with local government employees. This allows the agenda to be implemented without much public scrutiny - until after the fact when they start losing their property rights and small businesses. The 'stakeholders' are the special interest groups with the money - for example, the Sierra Club or the Gates Foundation would be considered stakeholders. Thinking back on the many things we’ve heard about the radical Islamists another critical piece of information was that they ‘want to take us back to the stone age’, they hate our way of life and our freedoms. It sounds like a message from the same people who want to put us in the zoo doesn’t it? The disconnect was that while this propaganda message was used to justify the war on Iraq (4th or 5th edition) - supposedly to give Iraqis freedom and democracy, the actions of this administration were to build a police state here, aid and abet the invasion of our country by illegal aliens even while it is having a devastating effect on our communities, they are shutting down military bases - while at the same time, the bases that remain open are blackmailing local communities (i.e. sell us your property or we will shut down the base) for their property using environmental laws as the excuse in many cases. The contradictions are enough to make one’s head swim - so let me add to it by continuing with my stream of consciousness. |
||
|
Jack Abramoff, the felon lobbyist was taking money from Indians to lobby for casino gambling interests while at the same time, he was funneling money to fund ‘environmental causes’ - the most notable of which was the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) headed by Italia Federici. During the hearings, it came out that Federici’s main contact at the Interior Dept. was Steven Griles, the Deputy Secretary of the department. If it was mentioned, I didn’t hear it - but Gale Norton actually co-founded CREA with Grover Norquist in 1998. Federici took over leadership when Norton stepped down to become the Interior Secretary. Abramoff’s connections with Indians and the Interior department and a fake environmental group interested me because of a case in Idaho involving what can only be described as the theft of water rights by an Indian tribe in ‘partnership’ with the U.S. government. Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed have been a ‘team’ since the 1980’s when they were all involved with the Young Republicans.
According to the Washington Post, in 2005 Ralph Reed accepted secret lobbying payments from Abramoff to oppose casino gambling. In November 2005, working for another Abramoff client, Reed sought to block a congressional ban on Internet gambling (Grover Norquist is on "The Commission" for eCommerce) . In other words, the Abramoff scandal has exposed Ralph Reed as a fraud and the Christian Coalition as merely a tool for lobbying for the wealthy. |
||
|
Given any issue, it is possible to craft a message to sell ideas to either the left or the right. Since most people are too busy or too ignorant to check into the details, they will tend to focus on the image of the person giving the message rather than the actual message. That is what made Ralph Reed successful. He looks like a choir boy so he was believable as a pious Christian leader while in reality he is just as crooked as Abramoff. That’s what ‘Movement Politics’ is all about. It is selling image. It is the politics of deception. When a corporation or ‘real’ special interest group has an issue, they hire a lobbyist like Reed or Abramoff and they craft a strategy to sell it - directly or indirectly. The strategy involves setting up a front group - like CREA to ‘craft the message’ and then giving them lots of money to spread around to buy legislation and the votes of congress. This is an excerpt from a commentary on green politics written by Grover Norquist in September 2001: "Why would George Bush stand firm on Kyoto, then turn around and sock GOP bulwark Jack Welch's GE with a half a billion dollar bill for dredging specious PCBs from the Hudson River? Why push for new oil drilling in Alaska, then ratify Bill Clinton's deliberately destructive arsenic water standards that will bankrupt small Western towns? Is Bush hurting himself and Republicans by running against the great green tide? Or is Bush caving for no good reason, conceding on issues that will not move votes? Just how smart is it to go green? With money, organization and high poll numbers, the green machine on paper looks fearsome indeed. Environmental groups raised and spent nearly $3.5 billion in 1999. The largest five groups-the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and Sierra Club-have combined budgets of $1.6 billion and 3,000 employees. If these five groups direct only one-tenth of their budgets into politics in an election year, they would command $320 million in each two-year election cycle, more than the National Rifle Association and the Republican National Committee combined. In 1999, 64 percent of Americans agreed: "Environmental standards cannot be too high, and continuing improvements must be made regardless of cost." A majority of Americans have agreed with that statement every year since 1981." Some time ago I did a search on Thomas - the government’s database of legislation to try and find the earliest example of a public-private partnership since this merger between government and the private sector is the vehicle for ‘movement politics’. I found this: |
||
|
PARTNERSHIP FOR WETLANDS CONSERVATION (Senate - June 06, 1990) [Page: S7417]
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on May 23, 1990, the Dow Chemical Co. announced a new 4-year partnership for wetlands conservation with Ducks Unlimited, Inc., the Nature Conservancy, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to preserve and protect North America's endangered wetlands. During a press conference, which was held in my Capitol office, Dow presented the first installment of a $3 million contribution for wetlands protection and restoration. This donation represents the largest corporate financial donation ever to benefit the North American Waterfowl Management Plan [NAWMP] and demonstrates Dow's dedication to environmental conservation and protection. In my home State of South Carolina, we have some of the most beautiful wetlands in the country. The Ace basin, another fine example of a joint public and private venture, preserves 350,000 acres of wetlands in the Palmetto State. I am pleased that $500,000 of Dow's contribution will go directly to fund the Ace basin project. Peach Point in Texas and the Hillman Marsh in Ontario, Canada will also receive funds for wetlands acquisition and restoration projects of the NAWMP. The partnership established by the Dow Corp. with Ducks Unlimited, Inc., the Nature Conservancy, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation represents the type of cooperation and commitment that will make programs such as the NAWMP work. As a result, our wetlands and waterfowl will be preserved in all their natural splendor. It is clear that a strong economy and a strong ecology can coexist. I would like to congratulate and express my appreciation to the Dow Chemical Co., Ducks Unlimited, Inc., the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Nature Conservancy for their participation in this landmark partnership. Protection of our precious natural resources is a top priority for all concerned citizens and legislators, and is one of the most pressing issues facing our Nation today. I look forward to more innovative and beneficial partnerships that will help to preserve America's natural beauty. Mr. President, I was pleased to participate, in and make remarks during, this press conference. I ask unanimous consent that additional statements delivered at the press conference by Mr. Frank Popoff, president and CEO of Dow Chemical Co.; James D. Range, chairman of the board, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Matt B. Connolly, Jr., chairman of the North American Wetlands Conservation Council; John E. Walker, president of Ducks Unlimited, Inc.; and John ,Sawhill, president of the Nature Conservancy be printed in the Record. |
||
|
So, are we to believe that Dow Chemical funded these groups out of concern for the environment? Not likely. During the debate on ANWR, the purpose became clear when Senator Ted Stevens was attempting to make his case for why we should drill in ANWR. When he was listing the groups who supported drilling in ANWR, he listed “the 3 million members of Ducks Unlimited”. "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. ~ Vladimir Lenin From Media Transparency:
As President of
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), Norquist helped the
Heritage Foundation write the Republican's 1994
Contract With America.
Shortly thereafter, Norquist led a right wing charge to
"de-fund" the left, declaring that "We will hunt [these
liberal groups] down one by one and extinguish their funding
sources." [from
Buying a Movement]. Obviously Dow Chemical was defunding the left by funding them from the right. The defunding of the Sierra Club was revealed by the battle for control of the group a couple of years ago. The leader of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope is an environmental fraud. He supports the massive invasion of our country by illegal aliens despite the incredible amount of environmental damage they do to the fragile desert regions - not to mention the environmental stress of an additional 20 million people in the country. They’ve instead turned their attention to Agenda 21 ‘urban planning’ by promoting the 1000 Friends of [State Name, City Name, etc.] At the end of his ‘Go Green’ article, Norquist says the following: So pro-growth candidates running scared should think again. Instead of caving into bad science and perverse plans, the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates argues that the GOP should master the art of turning environmental pieties into sound policies. Stay on the right side of the local issues, and, on the national level, take the case to voters that property rights and free-market solutions make for a better environment, just as they make better products and services. You can log trees, as long as you love 'em too. Not convinced? Remember the GOP's long-standing anti-welfare sentiment went nowhere until voters were convinced that welfare was bad not only for taxpayers, but for poor people too. A similar political jujitsu is needed on the environment, persuading city-dwelling Americans that government mismanagement is as dangerous to the environment as any chemical. What good is it to stop timber harvesting if it leads to three times as many trees destroyed by forest fires? Why destroy the Hudson in order to save it? But changing the framing of this issue will require consistent leadership. The green machine may be only a paper tiger, but if it scares the White House crooked on environmental issues, just its well-practiced roaring may be enough. One of Grover Norquist’s most famous statements is that he would like to get the government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. What better way than to make the government appear incompetent? The highlighted part sounds an awful lot like FEMA’s handling of the New Orleans disaster doesn’t it? They put a moron in charge and after he totally destroys the credibility of FEMA, he resigns. They hire him back as a consultant so that he can share his ‘lesson learned’. It also sounds like Rumsfeld’s handling of the war in Iraq - war lite. And the forest fires in the Northwest were the principle reason for the legislation that opened up forests to logging again. And it sounds a lot like the excuses that were given for the September 11, 2001 disaster - “we just didn’t see it coming” - all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. It is widely reported that Grover Norquist’s political hero is Vladimir Lenin. It’s apparent from his writings that he is modeling Lenin’s strategies from the deception politics to the Hegelian Dialectic, to destroying the American government and the American way of life.
Grover Norquist is a converted Muslim so he fits the description of the Islamo-fascist terrorist. But does Grover Norquist’s being a Muslim have anything to do with anything? Maybe not as much as the fact that he was involved in the Reagan administration along with nearly everybody else Bush chose for ‘his team’. The majority of the people in this administration were recycled Reaganites and they are mainly from the oil, gas and chemical industries. They are also the ones who supposedly engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union by outspending them on defense. With the benefit of hindsight however, it would seem that the collapse was fraud and the officials in the Reagan Administration who were touted as the engineers of the victory over communism were actually the communists and they are the victors over capitalism. The following is an excerpt from a must-read [1] series of articles written by William Jasper in 1995 about his interview with Christopher Story of the Soviet Analyst. |
||
|
Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy. A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninist revolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overt Communism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, to remove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would be accepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West — in parallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling its military power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateral and multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc. But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intend that "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not on ours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to "converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Western policy-makers and political establishments. In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained the detailed preparations for "convergence," and predicted that it would form the central theme of the forthcoming false "liberalization." He pointed out that the most prominent agent of influence preparing the West for perestroika was the nuclear scientist and controlled "dissident" Andrei Sakharov. He was the primary advance salesman for "convergence." Today, the West erroneously believes that open-ended cooperation with these "former" Communists will lead to a peaceful world. That is not their intention. Their purpose is to control the world. They are proceeding towards this objective by eroding national sovereignty in accordance with Lenin' s diktat that the state is to "wither away." All contemporary collective political arrangements — the so-called European Union; the North American Free Trade Area; the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental agreement requiring the pooling of military intelligence and other anti-state measures; and new regional blocs like the South African Development Community, which has set Southern Africa on the road to integrated security, military and foreign policies, and seeks to usurp national sovereignty in the region — all are devices designed to undermine the state in order to replace nations with regional blocs which are to be the components of a world government. The destruction of national sovereignty is the paramount objective, since as long as nation states continue to exist, world government cannot be established. |
||
|
Ordinarily one would want more evidence than just three articles, but given the age of the articles, all one has to do is to honestly assess our current situation. We are embroiled in ‘free trade’ agreements with the communist and socialist nations that aren’t ‘free trade’ but are really ‘managed trade’. Bush recently proposed the joint security arrangement with Canada and Mexico. We are losing our national sovereignty through the ‘free trade’ agreements. And Bush is ‘fighting terrorism’ while leaving our borders wide open. The communist UN environmental agenda is being implemented throughout our country - including the loss of private property rights. And our schools are being sovietized. And why is it that the majority of people don’t know anything about it except perhaps the uneasy feeling that something just isn’t right about what’s going on? It’s because the Reagan Administration took the precaution of creating Pravda USA following the Iran-Contra scandal.
|
||
|
“A covert policy, formulated by Ronald Reagan in conjunction with the CIA, was termed “perception management” and was formalized on January 14, 1983 when President Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive No. 77. The Reagan White House and the CIA felt that a resurrection of anti-war activism in the United States as had occurred during the prolonged and futile Vietnamese war could curtail or halt the Reagan/CIA policy of “aggressive containment,” specifically in Central America. The first step in this program was to fully analyze the cultural, ethnic, political and religious backgrounds of the general population and attempt to discover what themes resonate best with the greatest number of Americans. When this was been achieved, the next step was to create specific themes to address these cultural weak spots, or “points of public concern.” The second step was to gain control over organs of public information such as existing media outlets, so-called “think tanks” ( the Rand Corporation}, political opinion polling agencies, national news wire services, and the creation and promotion of media news personalities entirely in the pay of the government and obedient to their demands.”
|
||
|
And what they needed to do was to build a political machine to implement these policies and they staffed it with people like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Stephen Moore and many others. They are the leaders for ‘movement politics’ - (i.e. specific themes to address these cultural weak spots, or 'points of public concern'). They determine the strategy, establish the front groups and distribute the money. The obvious conclusion is that ‘movement politics’ is the source of the terrorism and it is funded by George Bush’s base. In fairness - he didn’t build the base, he is just sitting on it. The base is using the communist UN agenda to steal private property, bankrupt our nation and dissolve it into a continental ‘region’ and ultimately to enslave and control the American people in a communist system of governance. But we have a defense industry that is protecting America right? Wrong. The defense corporations are not American corporations - not anymore. But they are 'governing' America from offshore because they hold the power. They are dismantling our country and our government because they are the people who truly do hate us and hate our freedoms and it shows in Bush's domestic policies. Oh… and one final thing everybody should know. In Arabic, Al Qaeda means “The Base”. Do you remember when George Bush - all dressed up in his tuxedo was speaking to a gathering of his biggest supporters? He said the following:
"What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the
have-mores. |
||
|
___________________
|
||
|
Vicky Davis
c. January 2006 |
||