Saturday, January 30, 2010

Faggots in the military squealing to be open about sucking cock

Gay Military Porn Bust Reminds Us of Some Inconvenient Truths Regarding Homosexuality and the Military

“Gay” lobby group HRC plans $2 million campaign to push radical agenda on Armed Forces

“Gay rights groups were already mobilizing Thursday to make the subject [of homosexuals in the military/ending "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"] a campaign issue before congressional elections in November. The Human Rights Campaign announced plans to start a more than $2 million national grass-roots and lobbying campaign targeting lawmakers whose votes would be needed to pass a repeal.” Washington Post, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress”, Jan. 29, 2010

Two points about the 2006 FOX story below on a homosexual porn bust at Ft. Bragg:

1) There is a huge market for “gay” military porn because lots of homosexual men are turned on by “straight-acting,” “macho” (masculine) men. I realize it’s a sick comparison, but just as many women like a “man in uniform,” so do homosexual men. On Jan. 29, 2010, a Google search on the three words “gay military porn” (no quote marks) yielded “about 1,300,000″ entries. “Gay Military Porn” (in quote marks) yielded 34,300 entries. This is a huge (and very twisted) business, and obviously the demand is high among men with a homosexual problem.

The last thing our fighting men and women need is to have the military floodgates opened up for homosexual men and lesbians to join as open practitioners of homosexuality. That would put men who are sexually attracted to men, and women to women, in tight bunking situations, showers, etc., with servicemembers of the same sex. Remember: homosexuality is not an “identity” issue (sorry, Warren Throckmorton) or a “civil rights” issue; it’s a BEHAVIORIAL issue, and welcoming in men and women who are tempted to practice – or inclined to practice — disordered same-sex behavior is wrong and detrimental to the morale, effectiveness and readiness of our Armed Forces.

Of course, there is a huge straight pornography problem, too, of course. But men do not bunk and shower with women in the Armed Forces (except married couples). The sexes are segregated. [And then there is this peculiar logic by a homosexual activist, Dale Carpenter, who argues that allowing open homosexuality in the military would help identify the “gay” soldiers — making it harder for them to leer at naked straight soldiers! “Under present policy, the straight soldier doesn’t know who might be leering at him in the shower. So he has to wonder about everybody — hardly a reassuring prospect,” Carpenter writes. “Under a policy of openness, he’ll have a better idea who might find some of his 2,000 body parts especially appealing. Thus, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure.” How absurd. To even discuss such folly in a time of war is a needless distraction — and showering/privacy issues are just one of the many problems caused by homosexualizing the military.

2) Read the second to last sentence of the Fox story below: “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” What kind of a nonsensical policy encourages “homosexuals” to join the armed forces but then bars homosexual conduct? This is a triumph of “gay” activists’ “sexual orientation” ideology — skewing the debate toward “civil rights” and away from aberrant behavior. And it is very bad public policy. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness constantly reminds anyone who will listen, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land, but rather a political compromise driven by a previous president”s (Bill Clinton’s) desire to pander to homosexual activists. We must go back to following the actual law passed by Congress, which bars homosexuals from serving. But that can only happen after the Obama presidency is over. Meanwhile, we must resist Obama’s plan to homosexualize and politicize our Armed Services.


Army Paratrooper Pleads Guilty in Gay Porn Case
April 27, 2006,

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — An Army paratrooper pleaded guilty Thursday to engaging in sex acts on a military-themed gay pornographic Web site and was sentenced to prison.

Pfc. Richard T. Ashley, one of seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division charged with appearing on the site, pleaded guilty to sodomy, conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit, and drug use.

He was sentenced to 90 days in prison, but was given 15 days credit. Ashley also was demoted to private, will receive a bad conduct discharge and will lose two-thirds of his pay.

“I’ve embarrassed the entire Army, my country and most of all, dishonored God,” Ashley said during the hearing.

Pfc. Wesley K. Mitten and Pvt. Kagen B. Mullen were charged with pandering, sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit. Mitten and Mullen, who also faces adultery charges, have pleaded not guilty.

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

The 82nd Airborne says that four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishment for appearing on the Web site. They were reduced in rank to private, forfeited half a month’s pay for two months, performed extra work and were restricted to Fort Bragg for 45 days.

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the Army’s most elite soldiers, having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Avatar and the Myth of the Noble Savage

Avatar and the Myth of the ‘Noble Savage’

Avatar and the Myth of the “Noble Savage”
By Hank Wolf

I will admit to being a fan of movies even though Hollywood films have a tendency to promote themes that are harmful, or even downright hostile to the interests of our people. Consider the fact that Eli Roth’s disgusting torture movie, “Hostel” and the equally twisted and ultra-violent revenge film “Inglorious Bastards” were lauded by critics, the ADL included, and media circles alike. On the other hand, Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ”, an elegant artistic achievement depicting the love and forgiveness of Christ, was derided by these same people and lambasted as “anti-Semitic”.

In recent weeks, James Cameron’s 3D hit “Avatar” has ended up being somewhat of a sensation. There were, to be sure, many aspects of the movie I found enjoyable. The visuals were, to be frank, quite amazing. But like many Hollywood movies, it was packed with highly questionable thematic elements that bordered on a bizarre propaganda overload. Without spoiling too much of the plot for potential moviegoers, the main character of Avatar is a crippled former marine who goes to work for an evil corporation on the utopian planet of Pandora. The Eurocentric corporation is trying to extract a mineral from the planet, and in doing so, decides it must “ethnically cleanse” the Na’vi, the race of gigantic blue hominids that inhabit the planet.

Meanwhile, the marine becomes involved in a scientific-ambassador program that neurologically links him with a lab grown Na’vi body (an Avatar), and he immerses himself in their utopian native culture. He gradually learns their ways, and realizes that their world is far better than the life led on Earth. In the final scenes of the movie, he fights alongside the Na’vi in a cataclysmic war against the humans, and in a climactic battle scene, the villainous head of the corporate army asks the hero “how does it feel to betray your race!”

Like previous films with a White hero fighting alongside the oppressed natives such as “Dances with Wolves”, “Avatar” had racist, anti-White undertones. Only this time, instead of horses there were flying creatures (plus free 3D glasses). Ironically, Avatar was criticized as being racist by the media—not because of its clandestine negative portrayal or European civilization, but because the hero was White! Apparently having a White hero is beginning to be a little too much to handle anymore, even if the character is portrayed as hero for betraying his own people.

Actually the film is a not-so-subtle hate film against Europeans. Third Worlders will invariably identify with the Na’ vi people being exploited and genocided by Europeans. It is true that the movie has a subtle racial strike against the non-Europeans by saying it takes a European to lead them, the worst aspect of the film is its impact on the vast number of European-American audiences that see the film. The real target of the film is not simply to inflame non-Whites around the world, which of course it does, its real target is to destroy our own people’s will to preserve our heritage and freedom.

Having the hero be a White man who betrays his own people sends a not-so-subtle message to millions of Whites both young and old. If you really want to be a good guy, a hero, you have to do the right thing and betray your race and fight on the side of the other races. Of course, with massive immigration and high birthrates of non-Europeans into every European homeland, it is we who are being ethnically cleansed, not some Third World tribe. In fact the highest birthrates in the world are in non-White nations, while Europeans are being reduced to a minority in their own homelands. Their demise is not some evolutionary cleansing by a more advanced people, but the elimination and replacement of a great people, not by some sort of excellence or demonstration of ability – other than the ability to make a lot of babies.

One of the most troublesome aspects of the movie in my mind, and the motivation behind this article, was how the film propagated the myth of the Noble Savage. In a nutshell, the ‘myth of the Noble Savage’ is the belief that the mind of man is a blank slate at birth—pure, noble, spiritually connected to nature, and naturally caring toward other creatures. It is modern society, the environment, and European civilization in particular that lead to violence and debasement of this once innocent blank slate. In the real world, heredity, not the environment plays the key role in human and animal behavior, but that is beside the point at the moment. Is lack of medicine, literacy, the beauty of the higher arts, the advances of sciences really such a wonderful thing? Are we to prefer illiteracy and superstition over intellect and enlightenment?

Nowadays, it is often not worth it to spend too much time dissecting a movie. We have become accustomed of what to expect. But with “Avatar”, the media has admitted to some of the negative effects of this film that are important enough to address. A CNN article titled “Audiences experience ‘Avatar‘ blues” ( mentions several cases of people becoming depressed and in some cases suicidal after watching it. This is probably more widespread than reported. According to the report, the breathtaking, artistic depiction of the planet Pandora has made people long for an unattainable utopia and become depressed and pessimistic, especially when they are presented with such a negative portrayal of our civilization.

It may come as a surprise to many people, but I believe that this sort of pessimism is precisely the desired effect that the director and the Jewish dominated movie industry have in mind. They simply do not want people to think positive thoughts about European culture and our world as a whole. The purpose is to demoralize. The propaganda in the movie may have been subtle, and even indirect at times, which makes it more difficult to counter, and the conditioning all the more effective.

Obviously, movies are just that. Movies. They are often designed to implant ideas in people’s minds and we should always be aware of that, no matter how much a film may move us. Movies should be a hobby, a diversion, and a source of enjoyment. I for one try not to take them seriously and this especially goes for movies churned out by Hollywood. But, the danger of films like Avatar is not its overt propaganda; it is the effect of the film on a subconscious level. As reported, even though the “hero” wins in the end, Avatar is ultimately depressing because of the flickers of self-hate it instills in many. It is depressing for me because as I watched the film, I realize that this fictional film is one more blow against our own sense of self-preservation as a people.

Katie Couric: Be respectful “unless it’s someone like David Duke”

Katie Couric: Be respectful “unless it’s someone like David Duke”

Commentary by Dr. David Duke

It is incredible how some reporters throw out their most important journalist ethics when it comes to interviewing me. When I took journalism courses at LSU I was taught that the main job of an interviewer was to present accurately the views of the person interviewed. After all, that is what journalism is all about. The interviewer or reporter is not supposed to be the star of every interview. An interview or article is not supposed be about the journalist or his opinions, but about the fair and unbiased presenting of the views of the person, no matter how controversial. That way the public has the right to form their own opinions about the merits of the person’s opinions.

A reporter is supposed to find out and report what the views are of the person being interviewed, not to join in some ideological lynch mob.

Katie Couric is at the pinnacle of her profession as a journalist. In a recent interview she stated matter-of-factly that core journalist ethics shouldn’t be followed when interviewing someone like me.

In a recent interview with Poynter Online, Couric says that “ideally, in 100 percent of the situations it is really about the person you’re interviewing, or should be.” She goes on to say that her tone was “really important because I think it is respectful and politely persistent.”

Then she goes on to say,” that’s really what you want to do when you’re interviewing someone, unless its someone like David Duke whose views are so abhorrent to the vast majority of the American people.”

So if she finds someone’s views abhorrent or thinks the majority finds them so, at that point a journalist should not be respectful or polite, but simply a combatant rather than an open minded journalist.

The question is why would Couric throw journalistic ethics out of the window when she interviews me?

Could it be that when the public actually hears my views without bias that she is afraid they may agree with me.

And which of my views does Couric think the public finds so abhorrent. I have won three public elections, two in Louisiana and one in New Hampshire in a Vice-Presidential Primary. I have a public record of bills I proposed and a voting record from the House of Representatives in Louisiana. The American people will find nothing scary in the clear public record of my positions.

What has been my consistent platform?

1) Stopping the massive immigration that will make our Children walk as strangers in our own land.

(Polls show about 80 percent agree)

2) True equal rights for all, and thus stopping the massive racial discrimination against White people called affirmative action.

(Polls show about 75 percent agree)

3) Opposing forced busing and the forced integration of schools and preserving the neighborhood school.

(polls show about 75 percent agree)

4) Vastly reducing use of taxpayer’s money in Foreign Aid and not sacrificing American boys in wars all over the world.

(polls show a majority agree)

5) Protecting America from free trade policies that destroy American businesses and millions of American jobs.

(polls show most Americans agree)

and perhaps the most important position I hold, as far as the controlled media is concerned. A position they are compelled to repress:

6) Exposing the destructive policy of Jewish extremist Matrix of Power that dominates the media, international finance, and politics, and leads us to catastrophic wars that damage the American nation and people, that fuels hatred and terrorism against the people of the United States, and that is bankrupting our economy.

Most Americans would agree on this point too if they knew the facts, and that is precisely why they can’t afford to let me calmly present my evidence before so-called journalists like Katie Couric, who are simply servants of the Zionist, extremist Jews who own and run the media conglomerates.

No one in American politics has spoken so forthrightly and convincingly on all these subjects.

I suggest that the fact that I speak effectively on them is why hacks like Katie Couric must resort to schoolyard brawls instead of journalist ethics and human respect.

Best to All, David Duke, PhD

Here is the excerpt of the Katie Couric interview where she discusses me:

Interview with Katie Couric: ‘People want Coverage that Has a POV (Point Of View)
Posted by Mallary Jean Tenore at 6:07 AM on Jan. 26, 2010

Couric: If you’re too confrontational, and there are times when you need to be confrontational, sometimes the attention is then focused on you rather than the interview subject. Ideally, in 100 percent of the situations it really is about the person you’re interviewing, or should be.

Sometimes journalists make the mistake of having a certain tone or conducting the interview in a certain way that it draws attention away from the subject and on to the interviewer herself or himself.

My tone was really important because I think it was respectful but politely persistent. And that’s really what you want to do when you’re interviewing someone, unless it’s someone like David Duke whose views are so abhorrent to the vast majority of American people

Thursday, January 14, 2010

hussein praises kike faggot who called God a "homophobic bigot".


Man honored by Obama: God 'sinful, homophobic bigot'

'He should seek forgiveness for the pain needlessly inflicted upon gay people'

Posted: January 12, 2010
9:29 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Frank Kameny, center, holds one of his original protest signs as he was honored at the Smithsonian in 2007. President Obama hailed Kameny as a "civil rights pioneer."

A man honored by President Obama as a "civil rights pioneer" has told a Christian ministry leader the God of the Bible is a "sinful, homophobic bigot" who needs to repent and "seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years."

The comments come from Frank Kameny, a longtime activist for homosexual "rights," who once famously said bestiality is all right "as long as the animal doesn't mind (and the animal rarely does)."

According to Peter LaBarbera, president of the nonprofit Americans for Truth, Kameny sent an e-mail

to his Christian organization a few weeks ago.

Kameny, who was dismissed from his federal job as an astronomer in the 1950s because of his homosexuality, told LaBarbera, "You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, 'on the wrong foot.' It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole) himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia."

"Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia," Kameny wrote.

"Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot. He should repent of his sinful homophobia. He should atone for that sin, And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years," he continued.

Now hear this! 'Marketing of Evil' audiobook! Listen to David Kupelian read his controversial culture-war best-seller

Kameny, an octogenarian, was honored June 29 when Obama talked about the homosexual "rights" movement down through the years.

"That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired … from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay," Obama said. "And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership."

Hear Obama's praise of Kameny:

LaBarbera commented: "Of course Frank Kameny's outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

"However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God's plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone," he said.

Kameny's statement, delivered Oct. 13, continued, "It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful. It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful. And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)."

Kameny also, on June 17, received from Obama the official White House pen the president used to sign his executive order delivering to some federal employees domestic partner benefits.

Kameny, who coined the "gay is good" slogan, also was honored last year by John Berry, Obama's homosexual director in the Office of Personnel Management. At that time, Kameny was given the Theodore Roosevelt Award "for more othan a half-century of leadership in the struggle for civil rights."

Berry also gave Kameny a formal government apology for his firing.

"Folks, there's no shortage of sinful pride and presumption among 'gay' activists and their allies, that's for sure," the Americans for Truth website said. "How appropriate is this coming from the hero of a movement that redefines changeable sexual sin as a 'civil right'?"

LaBarbera previously documented when Kameny called believers "Christianofascists."

Friday, January 8, 2010

Declaration of non-disarmament: FUCK YOU KIKE GUN-GRABBING COMMIE FAGGOTS!

The following declaration has been around since 1994. It still holds true today and it bears repeating. We consider it to be the official position of A Well Regulated Militia.

We Will Not Disarm!!!

Notice To All Politicians:

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody.

A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act - those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over 200 years ago.

We Will Not Disarm.

The right to self-protection-the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all - those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We Will Not Disarm.

Not in the face of robbers, rapists and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

* We will not surrender our handguns.
* We will not surrender our hunting arms.
* And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms - is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation's.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of - may God forbid it - throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding - in the guise of measures for the common good - the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children's children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who - taking heed of George Washington's belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people-will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who-taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety-will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet.

The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Now - today - isa critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare:

WE are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights? Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails? Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people tokeep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic - the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known:

We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not Disarm.

Author Unknown: ( from Soldier of Fortune magazine, October 1994.)

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Interpol-From the Inside

Interpol – From the Inside

By Barry Napier Wednesday, January 6, 2010

imageWell, Interpol has certainly started a tidal wave! My inbox has been crammed with comments, from hostile to accepting, from ignorant to a pretence of knowledge. I had one, indirectly, from someone who worked in Interpol Europe. Also, many gun-owners tell me they would shoot it out with anyone who wants to arrest them for having guns. I can only warn against a Waco conclusion if that happened.

But, it seems I must be a lousy writer, because only one contact really understood where I was coming from. In this article I must mention my main contact, a recently retired ICE special agent, who worked very closely with Interpol as colleagues, and who was also an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. For obvious reasons I will not name him.

Tomorrow, Not Today

Now, my concern is NOT for what the situation is today. My concern is for the ramifications of what superficially appears to be a minor issue. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Having watched the growth of socialism over the past decade, I can see where things are going. I have watched seemingly ‘minor’ actions growing into major obstacles to peace and social cohesion. And this is why I reported on the Interpol issue… before it is buried under time.

It is also fact that those in power (in whatever role) tend to be very devious in their movements. They will not introduce huge changes with sudden big announcements. Instead, they will alter things a bit at a time (which is very fast on Obama’s clock), so that the big change occurs slowly, each step being accepted and assimilated by the public, so the final push seems natural.

Devious R Government

Let me tell you something, very bluntly and frankly: I remember in one senior role I had, having to deal with a troublesome situation that threatened the entire organisation and which was almost impossible to eradicate. I didn’t tackle it outright, because it would have caused a big reaction. So, I wrote a new policy. But, I didn’t leave it at that. I wrote several new policies, seemingly all different. Each one, in itself, was minor, but they were given as copies to all employees, who had to sign they had read it. But, I had an ‘agenda’. Over several months I gave verbal warnings, and after a while I referred the troublesome crew to the written policies, which, by UK law, were by then part of their contracts.

It took a while, but after several verbal warnings (all documented), I issued written warnings. But, I didn’t want cooperation – I wanted to get rid of the troublesome few. Thus, I stepped up the pressure by increasing work requirements, knowing there would be complaints. I kept increasing the pressure, and when there were inevitable failures to comply, I issued final warnings. At that point I referred the troublesome people to the policies issued months before and showed how they were failing to comply with each one. I then increased pressure of workload, and bingo! They left before we had to give them notice.

The problems we had could have been catastrophic if not dealt with. So - Devious? Yes. Necessary? Yes. What I am showing you is that often, when something major explodes in politics and in society (usually in a bad sense), everyone has missed the signs preceding it. Socialist governments are very good at devious. They will write seemingly innocuous laws and policies that, in themselves, appear to be ‘nothing’. What observers fail to see is the motive and the agenda. Soon, the seemingly innocuous changes are joined by others, apparently not connected. It is only when the big changes are about to be implemented that all the ‘minor’ changes and laws are brought to light as justification for the massive alteration in conditions.

In other words, look at EO 12425 on its own and you will see next to nothing. Read it as innocuous, and you will not see the wood for the trees. Ask government for clarification and they will muddy the waters, just lie, or be open (because there is nothing obvious to explain). If you don’t think this happens, then you have not lived in Europe!

Tony Blair barnstormed Britain with laws that were unconstitutional; he handed Britain over to the EU, just as Edward Heath did in the early 1970s, without a shred of legal backing. Then, more recently, Gordon Brown literally committed treason by signing the UK into the unsafe hands of the EU. Indeed, many laws, especially to do with so-called ‘human rights’ have been devised and used as a tool against the people, to bring in immorality and deception as a rule. Anti-terrorist laws have been used even by local councils to give penalties in court to folks who don’t fill their trash-cans properly! Websites have been crashed and stopped because government didn’t like the anti-government contents. The list of unlawful laws is long and growing. As one US journalist has noted: “Britain is already a police state.”

Don’t Be Naive

I ask those in the USA, then, not to be so naïve. If you think demanding freedom of access to information will provide the answers, then think again! You will only get the ‘official version’. It will not give you the motive or the agenda. What I do is to identify what appears to be disparate items and then join them together in logical fashion. This leads us to conclusions that can only be proved in hindsight. But, if we don’t identify them and do something now, before other changes are instituted by government, we will suddenly be faced with devastating changes hard to deal with.

Interpol claims anything anti-green is suspect, and even calls those who are anti-green,‘terrorists’. It could be argued that I am being over the top, if not spreading ‘misinformation’. Could be true on both counts! But, I am only taking the facts to certain conclusions, by relating them to apparently odd changes made by government, changes that have no obvious reason or force. As one who has experienced and witnessed social engineering of the Labour government in the UK, blatant and unchallenged, I know just how devious these changes can be. And, what they can lead to. No amount of freedom of information will show us the true nature of the beast, any more than the true nature of Obama was given publication space by a pro-Democrat media system, before the election (and after)!

From The Horse’s Mouth

My contact was an ICE senior special agent who worked closely with Interpol - let us dramatically refer to him as ‘Agent X’. He agrees with my UN comments but differs with one or two others. That is no problem. He says that airport security failings were “well known” by U.S. Customs, FAA, GSA and other branches of the government back in the 90’s, but no-one bothered to take notice. The reason given was, then, that there was no immediate threat; like many security agencies the government had to “balance the immediacy and imminence of threats”.

Agent X says “I certainly do understand your concern about spreading the word as son as you see a threat.” He also said that “My partners and I… were like voices in the wilderness” and so seemingly minor threats to airport security were ignored, because they were not deemed imminent enough.

He told me: “Even security in the federal buildings was a source of great frustration for us, especially after consulting with the security manager from the World Trade Centre.” Perhaps you might recognise that last name?

Think my approach to EO 12425 is far-fetched, or even wrong? Then listen to Agent X, who responds: “Part of my personal frustration or caution, if you will, with pointing out possible dangers presented by such things as EO 12425 is the responses these early warnings generate from their recipients. It’s been my experience, even with people trained and experienced enough to know better, is that a warning against something that’s not imminent is discounted.”

“If it never happens, the one who sounded the alarm becomes a ‘worrier’ and is taken less seriously. If it DOES happen, but much later… no-one remembers the earlier warning.”

Just as the US ignored the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists that devastated the Twin Towers. Just like the UK government that believed Hitler wanted peace. Just like the world governments that allowed Russia to land-grab after the Second WW. Just like world authorities who played down (and still do) the enormous threat to life by AIDS and what causes it. Just like those who foolishly voted for Obama despite the facts that were smuggled out under the noses of the liberal media. Just like those who ignore the evidence that environmentalism is fraudulent.

Socialism By Any Means

Obama is out to cripple the USA. He will do it by any means he can. That is why the UN is poised ready to step in when Obama hands the USA over to them (probably after the three nations join as one North America – Canada, USA and Mexico). The warnings are there! Yet, few wish to engage in the debate, because they think it is just rhetoric! How much more ‘rhetorical’ must Obama’s real activities need to be before anyone takes notice? How many ‘minor’ facts must be ignored before what was thought of as ‘not imminent’ blows up in our faces like the Twin Towers?

The fact is blatant – Obama wants the USA to be fully socialist; he wants to ruin the economy, because it is how Marxism operates; he has already silenced the media. Therefore, it is logical for him to begin proceedings, no matter how innocuous they might seem, to bring in laws and policies that will enable him to deliver the final blow to democracy.

Look Past the Laws – See the Agenda

This is the reasoning behind my original Interpol articles. Look beyond the obvious and the present! See the outcomes! And don’t expect Obama or his administration to give you the truth or the full facts. Even if you read and re-read the law, it won’t give you the agenda or the aim. These only come to special people on a ‘need to know’ basis, and those are people tied to Obama by the same agenda. However, we can all join the clues.

Yes, I know Interpol is not a ‘police force’ and is a datahouse for criminal activity. As others have rightly asked – why, then, has Interpol been given political immunity? It is my view that it has been given not so much for current use, but for future use. I link that use to Interpol’s now close relationship with the UN. And I link that to Obama’s aim to hand over the USA to the UN. Another link is that the UN was started by a Soviet spy and has been Marxist from its inception. Every single Secretary General has been a Marxist! So, when Interpol, a mere ‘datahouse’, joins with the UN, there is another motive.

Is it, just as Interpol says, a natural move so as Interpol can make use of the UN’s extensive world connections? Could be. But, I see it differently, given the way all politics is moving towards a One World Order. What begins as a seemingly small action, will mean a far bigger role for Interpol in the future. The data-gathering will all too quickly cover everyone, everywhere.

The UN doesn’t forge meaningless relationships! Everything it does is part of the Marxist movement itself. Only those at the very top will know the truth of the matter, but any sane observer should take note and build a Marxist future into the overall scheme of things. Or, be suddenly surprised by another ‘Twin Tower’ situation, because everyone ignores the clues. Better to be wrong than sorry!

I was told by another Interpol employee that all his colleagues were “very competent, law-abiding professionals”. Apart from the Pink Panther, I have no doubt they are. But, lower levels never know what their bosses are planning. Nor do they know the motives. Hitler’s army was run by professionals. Many did an excellent job in terms of strategies. But did that make their work any the more acceptable? No matter how professional people are, they cannot alter, and usually do not know, what their superiors are up to.

Hyperbole, or Real?

So, friends, do not think that political conclusions are necessarily wrong. Or that “there’s been some ill-informed, hyperbolic language used” in describing Interpol. It is not a popular task to take given facts and extend them to their obvious conclusions, because they go beyond what is immediately obvious. They do not come within the framework of an “immediate and imminent danger”. So, they are ignored. Then comes the crunch, and everyone is surprised. Better to go on the offensive now, than risk being a victim in the future, just because the extension of the facts does not meet the immediate law or policy wording!

Feel-Good Now – But What About Later?

I unashamedly speak of Obama, Marxism and Fascism in the same breath, because that is how they should be treated. Therefore, I relate the ‘official’ idea of Interpol to that of Germany in the early days of Hitler. They were ‘feel good’ days, too. But, troubling things began to occur, and were ignored. The Jews who provided much funding to the emerging political Hitler, then became victims of the same leader, their homes broken into, their shops smashed and closed, the Jews made out to be horrific causes of Germany’s problems.

When the war began, even these clues were ignored, and so the obvious end came – the gas chambers. At each stage in the years preceding the war, the clues were growing and no-one bothered to ‘join the dots’. The same is happening in the USA today. The UK and Europe are already in advance of the USA. Take my word for it: Europe is now in misery and expects far worse. The USA is only just starting on the treadmill promised by Obama… so use the clues to stop him in his tracks!

As Agent X says, “Interpol is an organisation that is more ‘feel good’ than effective…. Foreign assignments to the US are generally given as rewards, so that they may come here to live and enjoy our lifestyle.” Yes… but what of the future? No group is joined to the UN unless the UN can get maximum use from it in some way. The current ‘feel good’ may just be the same as the ‘feel good’ of Hitler in his early days. This is based on history, not on guesswork or wild thinking!

Comments on UN Valid

“Your concern regarding connection between the agency and the UN are valid” continued Agent X. As far as he is concerned, though, Interpol will keep up a façade of relevance as it becomes more irrelevant, until it can be employed as an arm of the World Court…. That is true, but we should not ignore the fact that the UN only joins with those who will be of help in spreading Marxism in the future. Will that help be in the form of a massive police network of data, not just on criminals, but on everyone? Melodramatic? Oh? What about those who said the same things about Hitler and Stalin? Their ‘wild thinking’ became a stunning and evil reality, and millions died as a result. A similar database is already being used against UK citizens, though they don’t want it.

Agent X sees Interpol as more a symbol than an actual useful tool. In my view a symbol can be just as effective as the actual tool. This is why Hitler spent a lot of time and effort getting the symbol of his power just right – and along came the swastika. He was right, because even today the symbol is a powerful reminder and rallying-flag for wicked men. Interpol can become such a symbol, even if others are used as the tools to grind-down society.

Commenting on its future, Agent X suggested: “What I foresee, in terms of criminal investigation, is a charter with the UN to involve Interpol as an arm of the World Court. This would be a significantly easier venue for them, as the World Court is operating without support from all governments, but would be recognised by the current administration, AND then provide a mission for Interpol that could work directly against US interests.” So, how far from the truth have I been?

“The difficult part to overcome would be US membership in Interpol… authorized by Congress, but at the discretion of the Attorney General. Just how far this or any leftist administration will go in this situation is truly frightening. It would be at THIS point, WITHOUT U.S. membership, that EO 12425 could be seen as a threat.” Exactly – that is my point… it is not a threat now, but will be in the future. Especially as Obama is following UK design – do it and see what you can get away with… which is just about everything.

As a student I read law and took part in many Moot Courts. I had the knack to twist the law to suit my own aims, even with a trained lawyer opposing me. It is legal and this is the way lawyers work to create a precedent.

“I agree with you that the green movement is insidious and is a Marxist organisation. I also believe they are ‘in league’, so to speak, with certain green industrialists… such as Al Gore, who was instrumental in creating a green market so he could capitalize on it. Each, much like the pre-war German industrialists and the Nazis, believing that they control and manipulate the other.” Well said! Bear in mind that Interpol says those who are anti-green are ‘terrorists’. This helps Obama et al enormously, as they force us all to enjoin with greenism. Penalties for resisting will come, make no mistake! Copenhagen saw to that. And Europe is already being penalised.

However, Agent X thinks that, at the moment, “rising against this executive order is swinging at shadows” believing there are more imminent threats to the US way of life right now. And that is true. Even at the very beginning of Obama’s administration there is the matter of his eligibility to be president. But, if he can get away with his procurement of the Oval Office without once giving proof of his eligibility, he can literally get away with anything he wishes. And one only has to look at the long list of his ‘czars’ to see just how radical and immoral his decisions are, against the people and even Congress. So, just how distant is imminent, seeing as how Obama is rushing forward like an express train?

“He adds “We have many more grievous threats… to waste energy focusing on the possible threat of Interpol, during a time in which we must be actively engaged in imminent and immediate threats to our freedom…” Again, well said, and he has a valid point, which I respect. My own view is simply that to ignore the threat is to become a victim in the future. And yes, there are many current threats that must be dealt with – but deal with the seemingly smaller ones at the same time, before they grow from little fish to big ones with huge teeth.

Keep Going

Finally, Agent X said this: “Thanks again and keep the torch burning. I am glad we can have this civilized discourse… so much different than when trying to engage a liberal!!!”

There you have it, from the mouth of a Interpol insider. The only real point of difference is that he believes we should concentrate on current dangers to our freedoms, though he still recognises the dangers posed by the UN. My caveat is that some things seem small now, but will grow fast.

Look at Europe for the alternative, where a Fascist EU rules every aspect of life… and is paid billions of dollars by each member country for the privilege! It is getting worse. Because of UK green laws, the elderly are buying old books from charity shops, because it is cheaper to burn them than to use energy, hiked up in price by socialists. This is what the USA faces very soon if it does not fight back and stop the Obamarisation of the country. Fight for freedom, but also be very aware of coming threats, such as Interpol, and be ready to take action. Otherwise the USA will be lost forever. Remember – there is no real difference between Marxism and Fascism. Both are socialist and both want to rule the world with an iron fist.

Summation by Agent X

Agent X agrees with my main thesis. He concludes:

“Overall, I believe your article is very accurate and very rationally and logically presents the arguments that need to be raised. I would also add, for your discussion of the Nazi rise to power, is that Mein Kampf was an incredibly open and honest expression of Hitler’s ultimate goals. Had anyone read and believed his agenda, no one could have been surprised with the result. Just reading statements of Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other “esteemed” members of the disloyal left should leave no surprises! Even less surprising should be a review of their performance….”

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Husseins alows AIDS infested African niggers to get free medical in Amerikwa!

They are Lying Out their A$$ !

Posted on 06. Jan, 2010 by Shera Crossan in Foreign and Domestic Intelligence, Free Speech, Health, Immigration, Politics, Shera Crossan, Top Stories

They are Lying Out their A$$ !1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5 (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5, rated)

‘The US has lifted a 22-year immigration ban which has stopped anyone with HIV/Aids from entering the country.’
The above quoted statement makes me so angry I can scream, as I know many of you reading this are doing the same. They can say the US has lifted a 22-year immigration ban on HIV/Aids from entering the country all they want but I will tell the US Government they are lying out their asses and if they think America or at least a small amount of us believe that they are insane. I guess they must not include ‘Refugees, Asylum, seekers that come into or have been even invited by the US Government with Aids/HIV, and other life threatening diseases, viruses all on the US Tax Payers Dime(which = Truck loads of Dimes)

President Obama said the ban was not compatible with US plans to be a leader in the fight against the disease.

For the first time in 2008, graphs from the Epidemiological fact sheets have been extracted into single-page country profiles. These country profiles have a special focus on trends. They include line charts on HIV prevalence 1990-2007, number of people living with HIV 1990-2007, annual number of deaths 1990-2007, antiretroviral therapy coverage 2004-2007 and prevention of mother-to-child transmission coverage 2004-2007.WHO Link to country profiles

HIV as a Ground of Inadmissibility: How it works
Two major sets of rules prevent noncitizens from entering and/or staying in the United States: the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. HIV is not a ground of deportability, but is a ground of inadmissibility. This means DHS can “remove” someone from the United States for HIV only if the person entered the United States without government permission. DHS cannot deport people for being HIV positive or having an AIDS diagnosis if they entered on visas or now have lawful permanent residence.

Because HIV is a ground of inadmissibility, DHS may attempt to keep HIV positive individuals who are trying to enter the country, except US citizens and most lawful permanent residents, out of the United States. This includes temporary visitors (non-immigrants) and those intending to live in the United States permanently (immigrants). Another inadmissibility ground that is a barrier for many HIV positive noncitizens is the “public charge” ground,

Rejecting Noncitizens Trying to Enter the US
Although DHS does not test people for HIV when they try to enter the United States, everyone except US citizens and lawful permanent residents must get a visa to enter legally. Noncitizens who want to immigrate permanently to the United States as lawful permanent residents must submit to a medical examination that includes an HIV antibody test.MORE

The new rules come into force on Monday and the US plans to host a global HIV/Aids summit for the first time in 2012.The ban was imposed at the height of a global panic about the disease at the end of the 1980s.

It put the US in a group of just 12 countries, also including Libya and Saudi Arabia, that excluded anyone suffering from HIV/Aids.

The BBC’s Charles Scanlon, in Miami, says that improving treatments and evolving public perceptions have helped to bring about the change.Rachel Tiven, head of the campaign group Immigration Equality, told the BBC that the step was long overdue.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010



By Harmony Grant Daws
5 Jan 10

If America had a national religion, what would it be? We were founded by Christians and deists. Over 75 percent of us still profess Christianity. But I wonder what a space alien would conclude if guessing our national religion based on public officials, public symbols and the discourse we allow.

In San Francisco, it wasn’t nativities or even crosses that were torn down this year, but stars—after an atheist complained they were Christian symbols. Yet White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, flanked by two rabbis, needed a cherry picker to reach the flames of the huge federal menorah in a lighting ceremony in the capitol. In Boca Raton Florida, a menorah is allowed on display in the public library while a Christian nativity scene is banned. This is reminiscent of the 1989 US Supreme Court decision which banned a nativity scene from a Pittsburgh courthouse while allowing an 18-foot menorah to remain!

I n the United States Jews make up 1.3 percent of the population (in 2001). But they hold a staggering 43 seats in Congress! That makes them 8 percent of America’s legislators—more than six times more abundant in the halls of Congress than in the rest of the nation. Israeli paper Haaretz said frankly that US officials must face a background check of their position on Israel before being hired. Last week our president raised federal aid to Israel in 2010 by $225 million. Next year we struggling taxpayers will hand over to this tiny tyrant a gigantic $2.775 billion.

Meanwhile, the true Christian position on Israel—that her inheritance of the Promised Land is conditioned on obedience—is clearly stated in the Old Testament; but the mainstream evangelical church has been hijacked by a non-Christian, Zionist position which states that the untouchable Jewish people are blessed by God no matter what they do. Sixteen Palestinian Christians have just published the Kairos document pleading for support from their American brethren. They request boycotts and economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its oppression of Palestinians. But the response of the alleged “Christian” majority in America to Palestinian needs? It is overwhelmingly Jewish in identity. Texas mega-church pastor John Hagee founded Christians United for Israel which has directors in every one of our 50 states. This previous May, every state in the Union held a simultaneous Night to Honor Israel. Evangelicals yearly donate tens of millions to Israel.

Perhaps Americans’ brainwashing about Israel has something to do with the nearly two hundred Holocaust films made by major media. Jews dominate Hollywood and big media in America (as was recently boasted by Jewish columnist Joel Stein in the LA Times). This makes them the most powerful producers of American culture. Americans are also taught to hallow the Holocaust by 16 museums around the nation including a large and federally supported one in the National Mall; the website for that museum hosts 25 million visits daily.

Jewish supremacy isn’t a purely American phenomenon. Jews are overrepresented in seats of power in nations around the world. Israel and Jewish activists seek to unite us all under a one-world ban on criticism of Israel, an overblown definition of “anti-Semitism,” and a “human rights” bureaucracy ruled from Jerusalem. Many other nations in and outside of Europe have citizens far more aware of Jewish supremacism than are Americans. In the Republic of Moldova, anger is so intense that about two hundred residents led by an Orthodox priest tore down a large menorah erected in a public square this Christmas. The Orthodox church issued a statement acknowledging that the protest was unpleasant but also stating: “ we think it inappropriate to put a symbol of the Jewish cult in a public place connected to the history and faith of our people, especially because Chanukah is classified by the cult books of Judaism as a 'holiday of blessing' that symbolizes the victory of Jews over non-Jews."

A public menorah was also defaced in protest in Buenos Aires over Hanukkah. The words “Argentina is Catholic” were painted on its base. A local rabbi said he did not believe the local population was anti-Semitic and reasoned, “It must be understood that we are living in a Christian country where Jews account for less than one percent of the population.”

This is true. Jews account for less than one or two percent of the population of most nations yet the influence and power of Jewish supremacism continues to grow. This is largely because Gentile and Christian nations are afraid (cowed by the label “anti-Semite!”) to consider that Jewish supremacists have an ethnic and religious agenda to undermine Gentile, Christian civilization—just as Christians have an agenda to spread it. The epic, spiritual struggle between Christ and the Jews now spans over two millennia. American Christians, by ignoring the battle, surrender their nation.