America’s Foundations in Danger or Under Attack

There are some interesting items worthy of a second look or listen as I sit back this evening, counting my blessings after having enjoyed a great Sunday. Rather than write my opinions, here are some teaser “lifts” along with links to read the whole articles.

First, from my friend Nickie Goomba, Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord .

“If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks…”

“At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”

Did you catch that; our president is about to sign a treaty which will give away 200 plus years of hard fought for sovereignty to a world government order, something which should not surprise anyone paying attention to the communist leaning sphere of influential advisers Obama has surrounded himself with. How’s that Hope and Change thing working for you?

Second on my list of articles which should curl your hair would be the aspect of selling gold that doesn't exist by implementation of the principles of fractional reserve banking. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Mike Landfair, a retired stock broker friend for posting this on his blog under the title, How Much Imaginary Gold Has Been Sold? It should be noted that this article was originally written by Adrian Douglas under this same title.

“The unique characteristic of gold is that about 50 percent (80,000 tonnes) of the above-ground stocks are held as a store of wealth (investment). The other 50 percent exists as jewelry. When gold is bought as a store of wealth it can perform that function for you wherever it is in the world. Given this unique characteristic many large investors in bullion prefer to leave their gold with the bullion dealer from whom they bought it so that it can be stored in their vault and easily resold. This is identical to the situation with stocks, where most stock certificates are held by brokerage houses, not by individuals.
That people are buying and selling gold without ever taking delivery means that there is the opportunity for bullion houses to sell gold that doesn't exist.

Now the bullion houses probably don't view this as illegal or dishonest because they will operate a fractional reserve type of system, just as the banks do with fiat currency, and will make sure they have enough gold on hand for what would be the maximum estimated volume of gold that could be called for delivery. After all, trading is done with unallocated gold, so how much more unallocated can it get if it doesn't exist at all?”

{…}

“If the OTC was selling only gold that the participants own, there could never be a lack of liquidity. The panic that occurred at the end of September confirms that there is a chronic lack of liquidity. This necessarily implies that there is multiple ownership of the same ounce of gold and it is, therefore, fraudulent. Leasing of gold from central banks provides only temporary liquidity, because the central banks want their gold returned at some later date, and it looks as if the bullion bankers may have dipped into that well one too many times already.

The gold market is in a precarious position. Just as in the days of the gold standard it requires only one customer not having his deposit returned to bring down the bank, because a domino effect results in all depositors asking for their deposits to be returned. If my estimates are correct, that somewhere between 64,000 and 150,000 tonnes of gold have been sold against a reserve of only 15,000 tonnes.”

This looks like a Ponzi scheme to me, selling a product which you never had with the hope that the owner never demands delivery; a scary scenario when you think about how much is at stake.

Then there is the continued effort to silence the freedom of expression guaranteed under the 1st Amendment to folks who express a religious opinion in the political arena. I specifically am referring to those who claim that Mormons, and other Christians violated the rights of homosexuals seeking equal “rights” to marriage, altering the definition of marriage in order to accommodate such. Dalin H. Oaks addressed a group of students at BYU-Idaho on October 13, 2009, on the subject of Religious Freedom; a transcript is linked from the Church Newsroom site, or if you prefer, an audio transcript is also linked.

Thanks for my friend Shawn Rogers for posting this link on his Facebook site and Meridian Magazine for posting the original article. Here’s a taste of what was offered…

“…Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.”

The material is worthy of any college of law as it clearly defines the difference between rights as covered under our Constitution and “extensions of thought” which many would have us believe are equally covered and yet fall short of God given rights.

Last on my list of valued articles worth sharing came from a blog I visit from time to time, Say Uncle; an article he called, Opening Shots in the Culture War . This is a wake up call to anyone who considers the 2nd Amendment issue a done deal; after all, the Supreme Court made a fairly straight forward decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, didn’t it? The original article linked to one written by Michael Kirkland which gets into the nuts and bolts of why this issue is on “Gun Control on Culture War’s Front Burner” .

“…the right to bear arms was not initially established in the Second Amendment, Scalia wrote. The amendment "codified a pre-existing right" dating back to the days when the Catholic English King James II tried to keep Protestants from obtaining weapons. Later, William and Mary guaranteed Protestants the right to bear arms in the Declaration of Rights, which became the English Bill of Rights.

But government is not powerless when it comes to regulating arms, the court majority said in the opinion's syllabus:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogs. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
As sweeping as the opinion in Heller is, advocates of gun rights and gun control are waiting for the other shoe to drop this term.”

I remember reading the difference between a conservative and a liberal, at least as pertain to guns. “If a conservative doesn’t like guns he doesn’t own one whereas if a liberal doesn’t like guns he goes about making sure nobody else can have one.” The battle for freedom and liberty is never over.

Thanks to those who contributed their efforts and bringing these topics to our attention. While we may not agree on how these important items are finalized, the fact that we are able to discuss them without fear of imprisonment speaks volumes about the freedoms we are fighting for here in America.

I took the liberty of scanning one of the many historical "look alike" documents from a book Lucy gave me several years back, The Declaration of Independence – A Museum in a Book. This particular document was Richard Henry Lee’s Resolution for Independence.