100% OF SOUTH CAROLINA VOTES GO THROUGH a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.
(If that wasn't bad enough SC has an "open" primary which means anybody can vote in a so called "republican" primary. Also you do not need to produce an id to vote. I asked to make sure and it is true. This means anybody could vote by just claiming to be a registered voter. So vote and vote "often"?
When I voted I didn't know if someone had already voted for me! The fix is in for sure.) Story Reports
****************************************************
In South Carolina, 100% of election results will be redirected through a private Barcelona, Spain-owned company, Scytl/SOE Software, before being reported to the public.
There is only one way to immediately find out whether Scytl/SOE reported the right results*, and that is for members of the public to capture evidence of reported precinct results when polls close tonight. Think of it as a giant neighborhood watch.
Precinct results should be posted at each polling site. In addition, during poll closing the public has a right to be in the polling place watching and videotaping what goes on.
SC Polls close at 7PM so be there to check up on the tabulation of individual voting machines. You only want the total that will be posted for the public. Don't get in the way.
SC results
Compare total tabulation posted at the precinct to the results reported at the above link.
* Well, you have to put an asterisk alongside "the right results" because in South Carolinia you get a two-fer. Results could be incorrect at either end of the pipeline -- from the ES&S iVotronic paperless touchscreen voting machines, which have a history of incorrect totals, or from the private results reporting firm Scytl/SOE Software, which has centralized control over what gets reported.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is Unconstitutional
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 Is Unconstitutional
by Brian J. Trautman
Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversialprovisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.
This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA,foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.
One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”
Regardless of whether or not this law is interpreted as applying to U.S. persons, by specifically targeting foreign nationals, the NDAA violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law. Therefore, any way you slice it, this law is unconstitutional.
Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations. As television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow put it in recent segment, “you now live in a country where, technically at least, the military has a legal role to play in civilian law enforcement.” Dr. Maddow pointed that while this may or may not be invoked during the present administration, “thanks to this bill…if this president changes his mind or some other president in the future does want to arrest Americans and lock them up in military custody forever without trial, our government statutorily now claims that as its right.”
Although more than two-thirds of the House voted in favor of the NDAA, not every member was on board with it. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) remarked that “what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution.” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) described this bill as a threat to “the inalienable due process rights afforded to every American citizen under the Constitution.”
The NDAA’s draconian detention provisions have received most of the attention, effectively overshadowing the fact that this legislation continues a trend of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on so-called “defense” objectives. According to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of only 13 members of the Senate to vote against the NDAA, “the bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined.”
The executive branch has acquired greater authoritarian and unaccountable power under this law which disaffirms justice as a fundamental human right. It brings the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition home. Tom Parker of Amnesty International USA argues that the NDAA “provides a framework for ‘normalizing’ indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life.” What democracy and civil liberties we did enjoy in this country before the NDAA of 2012 became law have been severely weakened, and our nation’s moral and legal credibility in the world, which has been gradually declining since the so-called “war on terror” was declared by President Bush, has been diminished further.
The NDAA of 2012 increases the United States’ worldwide detention authority. In doing so it further entrenches a culture of war in American society. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield… the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”
As difficult as it might be to have any faith left in the Congress, there is hope on the horizon for overturning at least the portion of the law that threatens U.S. persons. The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, H.R. 3702, authored by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and Martin Heinrich (D- NM) and currently co-sponsored by 32 House members, including the ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees, clarifies existing U.S. law and states unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful U.S. residents. It ensures that U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil are protected. The bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971, clarifying that a congressional authorization for the use of military force – such as that in the NDAA which included the detainee provisions – does not authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. H.R. 3702 is companion legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, S. 2003.
Since 2001, the Patriot Act, the AUMF, and now the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 have eroded of many of our most valued constitutional rights. Our nation is moving away from government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and toward a totalitarian state. The late historian, Howard Zinn observed, “Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country [America], for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.”
It is up to the American people to stop this fear-mongering and this unfettered growth of the military industrial complex. How? Americans can begin by actively dissenting against laws that violate their Constitution and their conscience. Dr. Zinn believed very strongly that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
If the Constitution is to be defended against those who aspire to destroy it, all Americans have a duty to themselves and their country to stand up and demand progressive change toward a culture of peace and justice. One of the most effective ways to do this is by engaging in methods of nonviolent direct action, as demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement. As more Americans embrace these methods and the Occupy movement grows stronger, Washington will be forced to end its campaign of militarizing law enforcement and American society or risk being voted out of office. Only then can the freedoms and civil liberties the people are promised in the Constitution be restored.
Brian J. Trautman is a military veteran and an instructor of peace and world order studies at Berkshire Community College located in Pittsfield, MA. He is an active member of Veterans for Peace and Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice.
(I don't hear ANY candidates running for president talking about this illegal unconstitutional "law". It a lot like the obama birth certificate. Nobody wants to admit its illegal or faked as the bo certificate is.) Story Reports
by Brian J. Trautman
Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversialprovisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.
This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA,foreign nationals who are alleged to have committed or merely “suspected” of sympathizing with or providing any level of support to groups the U.S. designates as terrorist organization or an affiliate or associated force may be imprisoned without charge or trial “until the end of hostilities.” The law affirms the executive branch’s authority granted under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and broadens the definition and scope of “covered persons.” But because the “war on terror” is a war on a tactic, not on a state, it has no parameters or timetable. Consequently, this law can be used by authorities to detain (forever) anyone the government considers a threat to national security and stability – potentially even demonstrators and protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.
One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”
Regardless of whether or not this law is interpreted as applying to U.S. persons, by specifically targeting foreign nationals, the NDAA violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law. Therefore, any way you slice it, this law is unconstitutional.
Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations. As television host and political commentator Rachel Maddow put it in recent segment, “you now live in a country where, technically at least, the military has a legal role to play in civilian law enforcement.” Dr. Maddow pointed that while this may or may not be invoked during the present administration, “thanks to this bill…if this president changes his mind or some other president in the future does want to arrest Americans and lock them up in military custody forever without trial, our government statutorily now claims that as its right.”
Although more than two-thirds of the House voted in favor of the NDAA, not every member was on board with it. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) remarked that “what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution.” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) described this bill as a threat to “the inalienable due process rights afforded to every American citizen under the Constitution.”
The NDAA’s draconian detention provisions have received most of the attention, effectively overshadowing the fact that this legislation continues a trend of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on so-called “defense” objectives. According to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of only 13 members of the Senate to vote against the NDAA, “the bill continues to authorize heavy spending on defense despite the end of the 9-year-old war in Iraq. Ironically, the Senate vote came on the same day when Defense Secretary Panetta was in Baghdad officially declaring that our military mission there has ended and that virtually all of the combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year. At a time when we have tripled defense spending since 1997 and spend more today on defense than the rest of the world combined.”
The executive branch has acquired greater authoritarian and unaccountable power under this law which disaffirms justice as a fundamental human right. It brings the illegal practice of extraordinary rendition home. Tom Parker of Amnesty International USA argues that the NDAA “provides a framework for ‘normalizing’ indefinite detention and making Guantanamo a permanent feature of American life.” What democracy and civil liberties we did enjoy in this country before the NDAA of 2012 became law have been severely weakened, and our nation’s moral and legal credibility in the world, which has been gradually declining since the so-called “war on terror” was declared by President Bush, has been diminished further.
The NDAA of 2012 increases the United States’ worldwide detention authority. In doing so it further entrenches a culture of war in American society. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield… the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”
As difficult as it might be to have any faith left in the Congress, there is hope on the horizon for overturning at least the portion of the law that threatens U.S. persons. The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, H.R. 3702, authored by Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and Martin Heinrich (D- NM) and currently co-sponsored by 32 House members, including the ranking members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary committees, clarifies existing U.S. law and states unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful U.S. residents. It ensures that U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil are protected. The bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971, clarifying that a congressional authorization for the use of military force – such as that in the NDAA which included the detainee provisions – does not authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. H.R. 3702 is companion legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, S. 2003.
Since 2001, the Patriot Act, the AUMF, and now the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 have eroded of many of our most valued constitutional rights. Our nation is moving away from government “of the people, by the people, for the people” and toward a totalitarian state. The late historian, Howard Zinn observed, “Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country [America], for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create hysteria.”
It is up to the American people to stop this fear-mongering and this unfettered growth of the military industrial complex. How? Americans can begin by actively dissenting against laws that violate their Constitution and their conscience. Dr. Zinn believed very strongly that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
If the Constitution is to be defended against those who aspire to destroy it, all Americans have a duty to themselves and their country to stand up and demand progressive change toward a culture of peace and justice. One of the most effective ways to do this is by engaging in methods of nonviolent direct action, as demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street movement. As more Americans embrace these methods and the Occupy movement grows stronger, Washington will be forced to end its campaign of militarizing law enforcement and American society or risk being voted out of office. Only then can the freedoms and civil liberties the people are promised in the Constitution be restored.
Brian J. Trautman is a military veteran and an instructor of peace and world order studies at Berkshire Community College located in Pittsfield, MA. He is an active member of Veterans for Peace and Berkshire Citizens for Peace and Justice.
(I don't hear ANY candidates running for president talking about this illegal unconstitutional "law". It a lot like the obama birth certificate. Nobody wants to admit its illegal or faked as the bo certificate is.) Story Reports
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Water fluoridation around the world is achieved through the purchase of chemically contaminated toxic waste chemicals from China
************************************************
************************************************
The Fluoride Deception
Water fluoridation around the world is achieved through the purchase of chemically contaminated toxic waste chemicals from China which are then labeled "fluoride" and dumped into public water supplies in local cities and towns.
That's the conclusion of a shocking new mini documentary released today by the Consumer Wellness Center. The 12-minute video documents the history of fluoride and how this toxic chemical is produced as an industrial byproduct of the phosphate mining industry.
Decades ago, fluoride used to be released into the air through the smokestacks of phosphate mining operations, but this resulted in the widespread death of cattle and plants on nearby farms and ranches. To stop the deaths, phosphate mining companies installed "wet scrubbers" that captured the toxic fluoride chemical vapors.
While consumers might think that deadly fluoride chemicals captured in these wet scrubbers are disposed of as hazardous industrial waste, the surprising truth is that they are sold to cities and towns as "fluoride" to be dumped into the local water supply where they are consumed by adults and children.
This is all being done to "prevent cavities" -- a medical claim that technically turns fluoride into an unapproved drug being used in an illegal mass medication scheme. The FDA has never approved fluoride as a drug, and no recipient of fluoride has ever been medically evaluate for their "need" for the drug.
The Fluoride Deception also takes aim at doctors and dentists who have long recommended fluoride without telling people where the chemical fluoride really comes from.
"They tell you it's good for your teeth," Adams explained. "But they don't tell you how it damages your brain, your bones, your health and the environment. They don't tell you about the toxic cadmium, lead and other deadly materials that routinely contaminate the fluoride dumped into the water supply."
**********************************************
The video link below briefly explains the history of another killer aspartame, how this killer drug has been manipulated by donald rumsfeld, to destroy and cause illnesses in the world's population. Please search, investigate, educate yourself, about aspartame. Save yourself, and your children!
ASPARTAME: MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO KILL PEOPLE
Monday, January 16, 2012
It’s not the votes that count. It’s who counts the votes.
They decided NOT to put the ballots in the vault and the "Seal" does NOT seal the box. Smoke and mirrors in New Hampshire recount.
*********************************************
It’s not the votes that count. It’s who counts the votes.
GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM BUYS U.S. ELECTION RESULTS REPORTING FIRM
By Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world's dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA's dominant election results reporting company.
When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.
The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.
As local election results funnel through SOE's servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get "first look" at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.
In 2004, many Americans were justifiably concerned when, days before the presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell redirected Ohio election night results through the Tennessee-based server for several national Republican Party operations.
This is worse: This redirects results reporting to a centralized privately held server which is not just for Ohio, but national; not just USA-based, but global.
A mitigation against fraud by SOE insiders has been the separation of voting machine systems from the SOE results reports. Because most US jurisdictions require posting evidence of results from each voting machine at the precinct, public citizens can organize to examine these results to compare with SOE results. Black Box Voting spearheaded a national citizen action to videotape / photograph these poll tapes in 2008.
With the merger of SOE and SCYTL, that won't work (if SCYTL's voting system is used). When there are two truly independent sources of information, the public can perform its own "audit" by matching one number against the other.
These two independent sources, however, will now be merged into one single source: an Internet voting system controlled by SCYTL, with a results reporting system also controlled by SCYTL.
With SCYTL internet voting, there will be no ballots. No physical evidence. No chain of custody. No way for the public to authenticate who actually cast the votes, chain of custody, or the count.
SCYTL is moving into or already running elections in: the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, South Africa, India and Australia.
SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker.
**********************************************
(A GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM will control your vote. A GLOBAL INTERNET VOTING FIRM will "count" your vote. Your voting will be controlled in effect by someone in a foreign county!
There is no way to know if the vote was tampered with or fixed. When they say your vote counts it means something like, it depends on what "is" means.
Is it your vote or is it someone MANIPULATING your vote. Its depends on what "is" means like clinton said.) Story Reports
HR 3166 And S. 1698 The suspension of rights and then citizenship is what happened in Nazi Germany. This is now happening here in the United States.
So all the U.S. Pentagon, Northcom, the White House, the Capitol, or any agency in the U.S. government has to do is put out propaganda against certain races (bloodtypes), political groups, religions, and individual beliefs and any U.S. citizen that meets the attack propaganda quotas will instantly lose their citizenship, be secret arrested and detained without a court trial under the NDAA of 2012, and then sent to death camps to be exterminated.
The Enemy Expatriation Act (H.R. 3166; S. 1698) sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA), an act that the U.S. Congress is now considering, that will allow the U.S. Government to take away citizenship of anybody that is considered a hostile enemy or supporting hostility towards the U.S. Government, is similar to the Nazi Factions Nuremberg laws where Adolf Hitler took away Germans citizenship based on race, bloodtypes, and those against the Hitler regime.
The United States Government is actively passing laws mirroring the Nazi regime before they started killing anybody who was Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Politically against the Nazis or even Hitler himself, and attacked those that helped Jews and other political fugitives escape or hide in Nazi Germany.
This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.
Pay attention to the passing of the Enemy Expatriation Act, because Hitler first passed laws to get rid of certain Germans citizenship due to certain races and those against Hitler’s eugenics philosophies, right before he sent them to the Concentration camps aka death camps since the laws took away their citizenship.
The Enemy Expatriation Act is no different then the Nuremberg laws because they both took away natural citizenship of citizens due to meeting certain racial and political criteria that was considered a threat to the Nazi regime or in this case the establishment in America.
The suspension of rights and then citizenship is what happened in Nazi Germany. Be aware this is now happening here in the United States.
********************************************************
Enemy Expatriate Act, SOPA, Patriot Act, NDAA,Carbon Tax, new job postings at the FEMA camps, And the push for UN International Criminal Court that is now being brought forward…… the list goes on and on. What more do people need to wake up?! I guess they won’t be until it’s too late. Has anyone noticed how all these plays for total control are accelerating at a faster rate?
Sunday, January 15, 2012
How to start a fire with a beverage can or eyeglasses
**************************************************
To create a fire, all you need is some sort of lens in order to focus sunlight on a specific spot.
A beverage can bottom is not shiny enough to make a good reflector and to concentrate the sunlight. It must be polished to a "mirror" finish.
Toothpaste or anyting that is a little abrasive can be used to polish the bottom of the coke can to make it into a reflective mirror. Use a wrapper or something that can move the abrasive material into the can to make it shine like a mirror.
Hold the bottom of the pepsi can toward the sun to catch the suns rays. The bottom of the can will focus the rays into a beam that can then be used to start a fire with something small that will burn.
Place the tinder about an inch from the reflecting light’s focal point.
Aim the can at the sun and hold the paper or something in front of the can to make a small starting fire.
This will work as will a pair of eyeglasses if held towards the sun. The glasses then act as a magnifying glass to start a fire. The suns rays are focused as with the bottom of the coke can.
*************************************************
How to Start a Fire With Eyeglasses
(1) Gather tinder. Look for material that is fine and dry, including any paper, lint or cotton. Look in your pockets or rub the lint off the bottom of your socks. If you can't find anything else, you can use your own hair. Find smaller twigs and branches to fuel the fire once it is going and place them in a pile.
(2) Make a small tinder nest about the size of your palm, and then take off your glasses and place your glasses a few inches above the tinder nest until you focus the sunlight into a very small dot or beam. The smaller the beam, the hotter the light.
(3) Keep the beam very still to allow the light to create a burning ember of the dried tinder. This may take a bit of time so be patient. As it begins to burn, gently blow on it with even breathes until it flames up.
(4) Place additional tinder and small twigs on the flaming nest to continue to build the flame.
*************************************************
Batteries and Steel Wool
Stretch out the Steel Wool. You want it to be about 6 inches long and a ½ inch wide.
Rub the battery on the steel wool. Hold the steel wool in one hand and the battery in the other. Any battery will do, but 9 volt batteries work best. Rub the side of the battery with the “contacts” on the wool. The wool will begin to glow and burn. Gently blow on it.
Transfer the burning wool to your tinder nest. The wool’s flame will extinguish quickly, so don’t waste any time.
(Information for anyone to use that has realized self dependence is number one. The unconstitutional ndda of 2012 that was passed by congress and signed by the illegal president seals the fate of America. It deleted the 5,6 and 7th amendments that protected Americans from the government! Its a different "ballgame" now if you know what mean. This blog will concentrate on self preservation and self reliance because the writing is on the wall.) Story Reports
MLK is not what you think but a mass media creation as is obama, both are FRAUDS
........................................................................................
The Rev Ralph David Abernathy should be honored on MLK day not MLK.
........................................................................................
AND THE WALLS CAME TUMBLING DOWN An Autobiography. By Ralph David Abernathy. .
........................................................................................
The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy's career has always been both enhanced and obscured by the fact that he stood so close to the overwhelming presence of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As he reminds us in the introduction to his autobiography, ''And the Walls Came Tumbling Down,'' Mr. Abernathy ''was there from beginning to end, from the Montgomery bus boycott in the late autumn of 1955 to Memphis in the spring of 1968.''
Now the man who in 1957 helped to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (the most prominent clergy-led civil rights organization), and served as King's hand-picked successor as president of S.C.L.C. from 1968 to 1976, is at the center of a firestorm of his own creation, one that revolves around revelations not about himself but about his closest friend MLK.
Mr. Abernathy and King were many things to each other - colleagues in the black church, cellmates, strategists, co-conspirators for justice - but at the personal level, they were best friends. But in friendships in which one person greatly outshines the other, a curious mixture of love, envy and competition can sometimes lead to a lingering, often unspoken resentment.
Mr. Abernathy's reasons for providing a detailed description of his friend's last evening and early morning - during which King had sexual encounters with two women and a confrontation with a third close woman companion - can be known only to him.
(((Mr. Abernathy said he had not revealed anything that had not already been discussed publicly. ''Had others not dealt with the matter in such detail, I might have avoided any commentary,'' he wrote. He also said that although he personally did not approve of Dr. King's behavior, he understood its reasons, because both he and Dr. King were away from home so much.)))
The Rev. Joseph Lowery, who succeeded Mr. Abnernathy as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said yesterday that he regretted the things Mr. Abernathy had said about Dr. King in the book but praised Mr. Abernathy ''as a stalwart steward'' in the civil rights struggle and called him ''a faithful servant of the cause of liberty and justice.''
Nothing is more relished than a book written in the first person and historical events that one has lived through. Rev. Abernathy tells the story of what he saw and lived with his day's as Dr. King's best friend, right-hand man, and advisor. There are things our friends know about us that our familiy members don't and/or refuse to admit. If you are not scared of the truth, read this book.
If you want to blindly walk around believing what others who weren't there have written, stay ignorant and don't read the book. Dr. King was not perfect, nor are we. However, the truth IS WHAT IT IS and does not need defending. Besides, everyman answers for his own sins and reading this book is no sin.
This book was written to set the record straight, by a man who had no need for financial gains and was close to death. In the real world streets are not paved with gum drops and lollipops. If you want that, go to Disney World.
(The state run media has built walls around MLK and the truth about MLK. Ralph Abernathy knew who MLK was and what he did. Abernathy exposed MLK. His closest friend said, "he personally did not approve of Dr. King's behavior."
Mr. Abernathy's provided a detailed description of his friend's last evening and early morning where MLK had sexual encounters with two women and a confrontation with a third close woman companion.
MLK is promoted as a "peace maker" and one who believed in non violence. MLK is not promoted as a whoremonger and adulterer. MLK closest friend Ralph Abernathy, King's hand-picked successor as president of S.C.L.C. from 1968 to 1976, was an eye witness to the real MLK. If you believe having sex with 2 women on MLK's last evening is something that you should honor on "MLK day" in his memory I say you are deceived and honoring a whoremonger and adulterer because of your ignorance.
You can know the truth via MLK closest friend Ralph Abernathy, King's hand-picked successor as president of S.C.L.C. from 1968 to 1976.
MLK like BO has no honor. Respect for the reputation of MLK should be limited to his effort to overcome racism only.
Bill Clinton admitted to having had an "improper relationship" with Monica Samille Lewinsky only after he was 'caught in the act" so to speak.
MLK was "caught in the act" by MLK closest friend Ralph Abernathy, King's hand-picked successor as president of S.C.L.C. from 1968 to 1976 but was murdered.
Because MLK was murdered the acts of a whoremonger and adulterer were never exposed and he became a martyr for civil rights.
I believe Abernathy and the former FBI associate director. MLK is not what you think but a mass media creation as is obama, both are FRAUDS.) Story Reports
Read the book. And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: An Autobiography By The Rev Ralph Abernathy
........................................................................................
Why would anyone honor a man whom the FBI said Bought Sex With SCLC Money?
........................................................................................
Notice there are no denials from Rev. Joseph Lowery, Andrew Young, Martin Luther King 3d, about what the rev David Abernathy said about MLK.
FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money
The FBI files on King are sealed until the year 2027. If what former assistant FBI director William Sullivan said is true, I can understand why.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley Levison's Communist activities. It was Levison's close association with King that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.
Lest you be tempted to believe the controlled media's lie about "racists" in the FBI being out to "get" King, you should be aware that the man most responsible for the FBI's probe of King was Assistant FBI Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially "I was one hundred per cent for King...because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights." The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King's Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.
According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the "civil rights" movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King's speaking and organizing tours.
In fact, an outfit called The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the "occupants - -of those rooms. That "according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold "would be "close to blasphemy." The reason? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent his last night on Earth having sex with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.
Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau hadáseen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.
Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King's supposedly "non-violent" marches, Sullivan's probe revealed a very different King from the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and practitioners of violence. King's only admonition on the subject was that they should embrace "tactical nonviolence."
Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.
J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King's Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King's real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in "the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on.
The purpose of this information is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. You need to start to think for yourselves. Consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media's active promotion of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.
Sources:
1. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change).
2. "King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87) David J. Garrow
3. New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15.
4. "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", David J. Garrow, (1981).
5. "And the walls came tumbling down," Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)
(Some would call this "hate speech" or hateful speech. It is neither. My opinions on what MLK's friend says about him as an eye witness are not based on anything other that what Ralph David Abernathy says about his friend. "Hate speech" is only a term created by the communist party to be used to hide facts that should be exposed. It is politically correct speech or speech that has been neutered or watered down leaving propaganda that cannot be believed.
Obama will give some comment about mlk and it will be nothing more than a fraud speaking about another fraud.) Story Reports
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
