Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
you mean tax payer assistance
https://usdebtclock.org/
btw: your on ignore
this is a big reason why we have a 2nd amendment
How they manage to steal everything from you
Any weather event can now be used to push fear onto the population.
It is silly and insane, but nevertheless extremely dangerous and destructive. Because this insanity is used to impose suffocating tyranny on humanity, of the likes which this world has never seen before. Forget China communism. What they are preparing for the entire world is China on steroids. In other words, hell on earth.
All meat production must be destroyed and humanity must be forced to eat genetically modified bugs, bred in factories. 4 Farms must be eradicated from the face of the earth, and replaced with labs and factories, where artificial food is created. 5 If one eats meat, it must come from a lab, where unnatural meat is grown. That this will cause cancers to become more commonplace than a simple cold, is not important to them. 6 As long as we all eat their fake stuff from the labs.
All finances must become fully controlled, by making them 100% digital, so the tyrants can block any bank account at will, if they determine that our spending is “bad for the climate”.
In Europe people can end up in jail, for spending too much cash. “Cash is bad for the climate, you moron! Do you want us all killed? Here, think about your silly behavior in prison for a few weeks, maybe that’ll teach you some common sense.” No more cash. Everything must be digital and controlled. That’s what will stop climate change! It’s no joke.
It doesn’t end there. People must be vaccinated on an ongoing basis to deal with the effects of climate change. And we must all pay more, more, more and even more, and still more taxes, to “save the planet”.
The World Economic Forum states that by 2030 nobody will own anything, as private ownership is bad for the climate. We must share homes, kitchens, cars, clothes, tools with everybody else in the neighborhood.
Travel is no longer allowed, but hey, the solution is that we can all travel to exotic locations from our coach, by wearing virtual reality headsets. Fake travel! Awesome! 12 Meanwhile we are locked inside our homes, because these climate alarmists are already announcing worldwide climate lockdowns, to “save the planet”. 13 After all, climate change is a far worse crisis than the pandemic, says Bill Gates, and equally dramatic measures should be taken. 14 Yes! Destroy millions of small businesses, and make sure everyone buys only from Amazon and Ebay, which they own. Splendid businessmodel. Destroy all small businesses through lockdowns and make the entire world dependent on our own mega corporations. Hurray!
When there are no lockdowns, we will all be imprisoned in our neighborhoods anyway, as 15-minute cities are being installed worldwide, which prevents us from going more than fifteen minutes away from our homes. After all, any type of movement is bad for the climate…
The level of madness these criminals are busy implementing in our world is too much for words. Some who read this, may not even believe it, as it is so ridiculous. Wait until you end up in jail for visiting your mother, who lives 16 minutes from your home…. You went one minute too far without a permit. That is what is being prepared, literally. A permit will be required for moving beyond our designated perimeter. In some cities of the UK it is a reality already!
https://stopworldcontrol.com/coldtruth/
The Great Taking
March 24, 2024
Story at-a-glance
David Webb, a former hedge fund investor, has written a book called “The Great Taking,” as well as filmed a documentary by the same name. His book and film detail how the Federal Reserve influences financial markets, and how its money creation has outpaced economic growth of the U.S., which is a huge red flag indicating that the velocity of money is collapsing
Central bankers and other globalists have carefully planned the coordinated takedown of the financial system using highly sophisticated strategies, including the manipulation of derivative markets. Whatever securities you believe you may own, you’re not the actual owner of, and when the derivative markets collapse, everything can be taken from you
While Webb’s work raises serious concerns, there are other more pressing issues that need our attention. Priority No. 1 is ensuring we have control over our financial transactions. We need to help state legislators to protect financial transaction freedom
North Dakota has a sovereign state bank, and the Florida State Legislature is getting ready to introduce legislation for state banking in the state of Florida. All states need to do this, as it’s one of the primary ways to protect the financial freedom of all citizens
Priority No. 2 is building and securing food freedom, and No. 3 is transparency and education. We need to educate people about the severity of what’s coming, so that we can, en masse, begin to make different choices
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/24/david-webb-the-great-taking.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20240324_HL2&foDate=false&mid=DM1547304&rid=2077659245
Goodbye Google
March 20, 2024
Story at-a-glance
In early April 2020, Mercola.com purposely blocked Google from indexing our articles and breaking news blog posts
I encourage you to search every site’s privacy policy page to see if they use Google Analytics or Google Ad programs, and if they do, encourage them to stop
Nearly every non-major website is using Google’s “free” analytics program, as well as their advertising platforms. Alas, those services are not actually free. Ultimately, YOU pay for them with your personal data, as that is the product Google sells. Collectively, all of these sites are stealing an enormous amount of your private information
Google’s powers pose several threats to society. First of all, it’s a surveillance agency with significant yet hidden surveillance powers. It’s also a censoring agency with the ability to restrict or block access to websites across the internet, thus deciding what people can and cannot see
Google also has the power to manipulate public opinion through search rankings and other means, and the shifts in thinking produced are both rapid and enormous
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/20/boycott-google.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240320&foDate=false&mid=DM1545338&rid=2074334452
Shadowgate Documentary
March 23, 2024
Story at-a-glance
“Shadowgate” reveals how a “shadow government” is manipulating society from behind the scenes and using psychological warfare tactics against the American public
Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of covering up an even bigger scandal than the fact that Obama’s administration illegally spied on and tried to frame President Trump and others using manufactured evidence
The shadow government consists of government contractors and defense and intelligence officials who are stealing the personal data collected by the NSA on all Americans, and have privatized and weaponized its use
“Shadowgate” features two whistleblowers who have spent many years helping to develop the psychological warfare programs that are now directed at the American people and used to influence our elections
We can protect our freedoms, first by rejecting and abandoning companies like Google and Facebook, which are the largest data collectors and manipulators; second, by promoting and aiding in the effort to expose Big Tech’s manipulations; and third, by restructuring legislatures and the government, and establishing new civil society institutions and news media that support and promote freedom rather than censorship and control
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/23/shadowgate-documentary.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20240323_HL2&foDate=false&mid=DM1546761&rid=2076867641
Jack Hibbs Sermon 2023 - America is no longer source of hope and stability
1,031 views Mar 12, 2023
Trump lawyers say he can’t post bond covering $454m civil fraud judgment
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/18/trump-cant-post-bond-fraud-case
An urgent message from Betsy Reed, editor of the Guardian US, 18 March 2024
It’s not surprising, but it is now clear: this November’s election will be Donald Trump v Joe Biden – again.
As we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
The media will play a critical role in shaping the outcome of this election – and this time, journalists must get it right. There are two important ways the Guardian differs from many organizations in the US media bubble:
• First, we are unafraid to say plainly that American democracy is facing a unique historic threat. Instead of obsessing about who’s up and who’s down, our journalists are acutely focused on the real stakes – the fact that fundamental human rights, our democracy and the fate of the planet are all on the line.
naaa, just reevaluating my position with caution but hopeful for us stockholders
Hyundai fuel cell trucks won’t be using green hydrogen after all
November 17, 2022
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/hyundai-fuel-cell-trucks-wont-be-using-green-hydrogen-after-all/
CFPB Orders Hyundai to Pay $19 Million for Widespread Credit Reporting Failures
JUL 26, 2022
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-hyundai-to-pay-19-million-for-widespread-credit-reporting-failures/
Shell quietly pulls the plug on hydrogen in the UK
20 February 2023
Shell has closed down all its hydrogen stations in the UK, saying “prototype tech had reached its end of life.” (The oil giant still says it wants to build “multi-modal hubs for heavy-duty trucks.”).
https://www.electrive.com/2022/10/18/shell-quietly-closes-all-hydrogen-filling-stations-in-the-uk/
Baden-Württemberg rejects hydrogen as diesel alternative
November 2, 2022
The German state of Baden-Württemberg announced that it will no longer consider hydrogen-powered trains, after a study it commissioned found that hybrid-electric powertrains—or good old-fashioned overhead wires—would be far more economical. The state’s transport agency listed a litany of drawbacks of fuel cell trains: costly filling stations; low efficiency; high energy consumption; high cost; insufficient range; and limited availability of green hydrogen. For one particular line, the report predicted that the cost of operating a hybrid train would be 81% lower than that of a fuel cell train.
https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/baden-wurttemberg-rejects-hydrogen-as-diesel-alternative/
Genesis 1
The Creation
1 In the beginning God ([a]Elohim) created [by forming from nothing] the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [c]formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, [d]“Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good (pleasing, useful) and [e]He affirmed and sustained it; and God separated the light [distinguishing it] from the darkness. 5 And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was [f]evening and there was [g]morning, one day.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=AMP
John 1
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, and the darkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [and is unreceptive to it].
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+1&version=AMP
Revelation 21
The New Heaven and Earth
5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true [they are accurate, incorruptible, and trustworthy].” 6 And He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the one who thirsts I will give [water] from the fountain of the water of life without cost. 7 [d]He who overcomes [the world by adhering faithfully to Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior] will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8 But as for the cowards and unbelieving and abominable [who are devoid of character and personal integrity and practice or tolerate immorality], and murderers, and sorcerers [with intoxicating drugs], and idolaters and occultists [who practice and teach false religions], and all the liars [who knowingly deceive and twist truth], their part will be in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+21&version=AMP
The first great resurrection was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is documented in each of the four Gospels (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20), cited several times in Acts (Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2, 33; 26:23), and mentioned repeatedly in the letters to the churches (Romans 1:4; Philippians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:3). Much is made of the importance of Christ’s resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12-34, which records that over five hundred people saw Him at one of His post-resurrection appearances. Christ’s resurrection is the “first fruits” or guarantee to every Christian that he will also be resurrected. Christ’s resurrection is also the basis of the Christian’s certainty that all people who have died will one day be raised to face fair and even-handed judgment by Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30-31). The resurrection to eternal life is described as “the first resurrection” (Revelation 20:5-6); the resurrection to judgment and torment is described as “the second death” (Revelation 20:6, 13-15).
https://www.gotquestions.org/when-resurrection.html
Jesus was a man aka God incarnate aka known as Emanuel, there is proof he exists that we use this every day that we call a Calendar
BC, AD, CE, and BCE: Meanings and Differences Explained
https://www.calendarr.com/united-states/bc-and-ad-their-meaning-and-differences/
https://www.ibelieve.com/faith/the-meaning-and-importance-of-emmanuel-god-with-us.html#Why%20Was%20Jesus%20Named%20Emmanuel?
and this is what Jesus said and still holds for the past 2000 years. not my words but his.
What did Jesus say about being saved?
Jesus made it clear that he, and he alone, will decide who is saved and it is Jesus himself who will save them.
“…the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father”. (John 5:21-23)
“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” (John 17:1-2)
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18. See also Luke 10:22.)
“I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” (John. 10:9)
Please note that, in all these verses, Jesus and only Jesus decides who will be saved. We are not saved by our own actions, our own faith, our own beliefs, or because we belong to a particular church or denomination. We are saved only because Jesus decides that he will save us. In this context it is important to remember that when God looks at us he looks at our heart:
“The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
https://followtheteachingsofjesus.com/articles/jesus/what-did-jesus-say-about-being-saved.html
The National Security State Is the Main Driver of Censorship in the US
March 16, 2024
Story at-a-glance
In a February 16, 2024, interview, Tucker Carlson and Mike Benz discussed how the fundamental right to free speech in the United States, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, is being eroded — not based on truthfulness but on alignment with the political and social agendas of those in power
Modern censorship is not as overt as historical examples. Instead, societal, technological and political means are being used to subtly integrate censorship into daily life
Initially a tool for freedom, the internet has been transformed into a mechanism for controlling speech, with governmental bodies, the defense industry and tech companies developing sophisticated methods for online suppression
New laws and institutional arrangements, both in the U.S. and internationally, such as the EU Digital Services Act, have created frameworks that legalize and formalize online censorship
Government, the private sector, civil society and media institutions are all working together to shape and control the narrative. To combat their whole-of-society censorship effort, we need a whole-of-society plan of our own that includes restructuring the legislative, civil, and media landscapes to promote true freedom
Study: mRNA COVID Shots Caused More Deaths Than They Saved
March 14, 2024
Story at-a-glance
A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus calls for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots
The review cited significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio”
When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections”
The study’s lead author suspected the paper would be retracted almost as soon as it was published because “our evidence-informed paper was an all-out indictment of the COVID-19 vaccine enterprise”
Board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, another of the paper’s authors, called the retraction a “stunning act of scientific censorship”
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/14/mrna-covid-vaccine-more-deaths-than-lives-saved.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20240314&foDate=false&mid=DM1542579&rid=2069599636
The Intellectual Underpinnings of the Trilateral Partnership in the 21st Century
by Henry A. Kissinger
April 26, 2009
Remarks to the Trilateral Commission Tokyo Plenary Meeting
When the Trilateral Commission was started in 1974, the world was essentially bipolar. The idea of David Rockefeller and his colleagues was to bring Japan into a dialogue with what was then the center of global thinking and power, namely, the North Atlantic area. China had just begun its relationship with the United States—it was not yet a significant economic factor—and Japan was an outpost in Asia for concerns that were evolved primarily in the North Atlantic context. Since then, the international system has changed fundamentally.
Let me talk about the nature of the international order and the issues in relation to the international order that I see emerging and which require some global group to address them. Since 1974, we have witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the rise of China, and the replacement in India of non-alignment in favor of active participation in global affairs. We have also seen the rise of nongovernmental organizations—some terrorist, some nongovernmental organizations that undertake positive work, but all of them active in a manner that was marginal or nonexistent in the administration in which I served. Terrorism was a very marginal phenomenon. We dealt with governments and we thought we had a difficult time, but those governments were only very indirectly affected by the groups that avowed terrorism.
One of the major themes of this new period is the shift of the center of gravity of international affairs from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The other is the collapse of the financial system that had been believed to be—in the 1980s and 1990s— the pillar of the economic financial order.
Some of the discussions with respect to the economic system create the impression that, at the end of the current crisis, we will go back to a slightly improved version of the previous system, with perhaps some more regulation. I do not believe that that is possible. There are a number of reasons why it will be possible or desirable to restore the dominant position of the United States. One of the key issues that needs to be discussed in this group and others is how to develop and then operate an international economic system that is multipolar.
One of the consequences of the financial crisis is a certain loss of confidence in the United States across the board. Many governments had become used to the proposition that in the political world America has flights of inspiration that prove transient. But in the economic world it had been assumed that the US model was correct and would be permanent. The fact that this has proved not to be the case will affect the American ability to prescribe solutions in a fundamental way.
For better or worse, the role of government in the next period will be much larger and attention will have to be paid to the fundamental flaw of the globalized economic system as it existed before the crisis. This was that the economic model and the political model of the global order were out of sync with each other. The global economic model assumed that there were principles that could be applied universally and that it was self-regulating. For that reason it was not believed to be necessary to have a political safety net for the economic system. But the fact was that whenever a crisis occurred, or whenever any group felt significantly disadvantaged, they would go to the political institutions with which they were familiar and these were the national governments. Therefore, inherent discontinuity emerged between the way economics was dealt with and the way politics would react. In the first round of the contemporary crisis, most of the solutions attempted were on a national and not on a global basis.
So, all of these matters will need attention and they will need attention in a very special context. Every country that holds the views I described – which is most of them – has two contradictory motivations. On the one hand, they want to make themselves independent of the forces that produced the crisis and, to a certain extent, the US. At the same time, they recognize that the solutions require a global answer. The result will have to be the evolution of some kind of multipolar leadership of the international system. Let me now turn to that issue.
The political world is in a period of fundamental change. When I taught international politics, we dealt with the concept of sovereignty as the organizing principle of the international system, both for foreign policy and for domestic policy. But now the notion of sovereignty is under attack or in the process of change in many parts of the world. Europe, which originated the concept of the nation-state, has voluntarily surrendered part of its sovereignty to the European Union. But the European Union has not been able, up to now, to generate the political loyalties that the nation-state did. Therefore there is a gap in Europe between the way foreign policy used to be conducted when the nation-state was the repository of political loyalties and the current situation. On the economic level the European Union becomes stronger but has not yet been able to develop the kind of strategic foreign policy that used to be characteristic of Europe.
Some of the disagreements that have existed between Europe and the United States are due not primarily to the personality of American leaders, though they were not aided by some of the arguments that the American leaders made. Their fundamental cause is the fact that European public opinion is very reluctant to run risks on behalf of foreign policy beyond soft power. It is not a lack of loyalty to the alliance; it is not a lack of understanding of what the issues are; it is the fact that in Europe, the nation-state—based on its experience in two world wars—cannot ask its people for significant sacrifices and the European Union has not yet created the requisite political concept. Therefore, a wise policy will keep that in mind, and I believe the Obama administration has acted wisely in Afghanistan in not making an issue of the disparity between the formal NATO commitment and the willingness of the Europeans to support it. I would prefer a different European attitude, but if we push that issue, we will weaken our relationship for no benefit. As we think of the way the international order is likely to evolve, we need to understand what Europe can and cannot do and how the North Atlantic alliance needs to be defined to fit the current circumstances.
In other parts of the world, the notion of sovereignty has collapsed for quite different reasons. In the Middle East, the notion of a sovereign state conducting an autonomous foreign policy was introduced at the end of World War I by the European countries. It, therefore, has not ever, and certainly does not now, attract the loyalties that the European nation-state had at its fully developed period. What has emerged is a concept of Islamism that challenges the notion of the secular state and, in some cases, the existence of the actual states. The principal country in that area that is conducting a traditional foreign policy in some respects is Iran. It has had an historic national identity, but it is now using it, at least in part, to support the Islamic movements that undermine the secular state.
The principal place where the traditional international system still exists in its more or less pure form is in Asia. The nations of Asia have the kind of national loyalties that were characteristic of the European states. Strategic conflict between the European states is practically inconceivable. In Asia there is a tendency to consider each other as potential strategic adversaries. A balancing of power of the various states is always in the back of the minds of Asian leaders.
So, as the center of gravity of international affairs moves to the Pacific and to the Indian Ocean, there are, in a way, two somewhat contradictory approaches to international affairs and, if other conditions had not changed, one would predict for Asia some of the kinds of conflicts that existed previously in the evolution of European history. The reason that conflict is less likely is the emergence of global issues that can only be dealt with on a global basis—issues like climate, the environment, energy, trade, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and they impel a global approach. Moreover, the nations of Europe went to war with each other because they thought the consequences of defeat were worse than the consequences of war. No country possessing modern weapons can have any illusions about the drastic impact of war on modern societies. And so, the rise of Asia has to be accommodated in an international system that is based on cooperation and on dialogue without the recourse to military measures that used to dominate international affairs.
But that raises the question of how does one do this? In history, international orders emerged either by consensus or by some application of a balance of power. Now, ideally, one would like to see order emerge out of consensus. But history teaches, and our own experience teaches us, that in groups based on consensus there is very often an unequal willingness to assume risks and, therefore, leadership groups emerge within the consensus group that assume responsibility, Otherwise order will gradually stagnate and fall apart. But then, the question arises, how does one apply this in the multipolar world that I have described? How can one get either consensus or equilibrium when the various actors are states but they also include NGOs and other non-state groups. This is the challenge of our time, and this is where a group like this can be of great importance. This group can raise questions that the governments sometimes do not find it possible to address, and it can provide a possible consensus to which governments can repair or which they can use as they make their decisions.
This applies to a number of issues. Let me give one example that was raised by President Obama in Prague, the issue of a world without nuclear weapons. That is a goal every American president has avowed since the beginning of the nuclear age and it has attracted enormous support by many intellectual groups.
At the Munich Security Conference, I quoted Senator Sam Nunn, who is a colleague of mine, on having talked about this project, together with George Shultz and Bill Perry. Senator Nunn puts it this way: “The project is like trying to climb a mountain that is covered in clouds. And you announce that you want to reach the summit but you have no idea what the summit looks like. On the other hand, you will never understand what the summit looks like until you begin the journey and start going into the clouds, and in that process it may become clearer to you. In fact, you cannot do it unless you undertake that journey.” Now the reason I and others who had high office have cooperated in this project is that we have all had the experience of asking ourselves, “What would we do if we had to make the decision to use nuclear weapons?” Each of us understood that this was a decision of a magnitude that goes beyond anything in previous political experience and probably of a magnitude that can have no moral justification.
So, it is an enterprise that is not something that you can achieve with placards or in outbursts of pacifism. It is because when you ask yourself of the impact on the world of the reduction of nuclear weapons, each phase of this has its own aspects and each phase will lead to a very complicated political discussion on verification and consequences.
I have been very much engaged in putting Russian-American relations on a more stable basis. In dealing with Russian strategists one learns that the notion we had in the 1970s of a Russia with unlimited reserves of manpower, threatening Europe militarily with its conventional force that had to be opposed with nuclear weapons on the ground is totally reversed. Under current conditions it is Russia today that thinks that it is surrounded by countries with unlimited reserves of manpower and unlimited ideological commitment. Hence, Russia finds itself relying on nuclear weapons in an unprecedented manner. The issue of nuclear weapons and the zero option has similarities to the Schleswig-Holstein Question in the 19th century, about which Lord Palmerston said there were only three people who had ever understood it: one was dead, the second was in a lunatic asylum, and he himself was the third and he had forgotten all about it. We have to be the third on this issue and we have to learn about it. This is one of the great challenges before us.
All of us here have been affected by the rise of China. It has been an explicit and an unspoken aspect of many of our discussions. It has never happened before that a country of such magnitude entered the international system without conflict and yet this is precisely the challenge for our international order.
There are two aspects to this. One is, What is Chinese policy? Is it Chinese military policy to dominate the region? This is something one can affect, and must affect, by discussions. The second is the weight of China. Regardless of the intentions of Chinese leaders, the weight of China will increase. It is inevitable; it is a fact of life; and it must, therefore, be considered in any discussions we have about a new international system. This requires wisdom and restraint on the part of all parties. No conversation in the world today is more important than the American and Chinese strategic dialogue. This does not derogate from any of our alliances; it is not a way of governing the world. Quite the contrary, it is a dialogue that makes it possible to create a multipolar world based on the recognition by two of the countries that are the principal carriers of international economic and strategic power of the role that they must play in this. So what we need to think about is this. What matters can only be done, or can best be done, on a global basis? What matters should be done on a regional basis? What issues require specific, limited groupings to deal with them?
This afternoon, we have heard about the issue of Afghanistan, and that issue and the Pakistan issue involve, really, two problems. One is the traditional military problem of how do you deal with the challenge to order that has presented itself. But secondly, there is the necessity of creating a political system in the region that enables all of the affected countries to act in a unified manner over an extended period of time. India, China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and the United States need to develop parallel goals and to merge them into a common diplomacy to achieve what in the 19th century would have been considered a neutral status for Afghanistan.
Having described all of these complexities, let me leave us with a positive feeling. First, the international financial crisis so preoccupies every country with its own domestic issues that no country has a great surplus of resources that it can devote to international adventures. So, with strong political leadership this is a good objective circumstance. Secondly, we are living in a period in which, for the first time that I know of, no major country is challenging the international system. All of the challenges to the international system come from countries that, in relation to the overall order, are relatively fringe countries or from non-state actors. So, the opportunities that we can see in developing the global patterns that are inherent in this situation are very great despite the fact that the surface knowledge is the opposite.
To all of this I think this Trilateral Commission can make a significant intellectual contribution. It can raise issues; it can define them in a long-range point of view; and it can help with one of the great needs of this period, which is that governments are so preoccupied with the immediate issues that there is sometimes no focal point for a consistent application of long-range visions. So we can raise issues, we can indicate directions, and in this way we can fulfill the vision that created the Trilateral Commission when it operated in a smaller framework and when one of its primary purposes was to bring Japan into a North Atlantic framework. Now it can help bring Asia and Russia into a coherent global framework.
https://www.henryakissinger.com/speeches/the-intellectual-underpinnings-of-the-trilateral-partnership-in-the-21st-century/
evil repeating evil......
The Real Story Behind the Trilateral commission
As a campaign issue during this election year, the Trilateral Commission has already had a determining influence in the New Hampshire, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia primaries, and it is coming up as a crucial issue in the Illinois primary. The Commission is a group of 300 powerful public figures from North America, Japan, and Western Europe, formed in 1973 with advice and guidance from the Council on Foreign Relations and from British aristocrats, such as the Earl of Cromer of Baring Bros., Lord Roll of S.G. Warburg & Co. and director of the Bank of England, Lord Harlech, Sir Kenneth Keith, Sir Arthur Knight, and others. One hundred and ten members of the Commission are Americans, and 27 of them have served or are now serving in the Carter administration. This includes President Carter, Vice-President Mondale, Secretary of State Vance, Secretary of Defense Brown, and others. David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger’s piggy bank, is accorded the honor of calling himself the founder of the Commission. The candidacy of George Bush is now in ruins because the candidate has been overidentified with the Trilateral Commission. John B. Anderson deserves and probably will get a sound trouncing by the voters for the same reason as Bush: his long-standing identification with the Trilateral Commission.
The electorate knows very little of substance about the Trilateral Commission, but this is compensated by the fact that it knows that President Carter was handpicked and put into office by the Commission. Therefore, not without justice, the average informed American citizen identifies the debacles and disasters of the Carter administration with the Trilateral Commission. They do not want any of it, and they do not want any other candidate close to or identified with the Commission. This year’s general election is, on a fundamental level, fought around the issue of the «Eastern Establishment’s» control over American policymaking institutions. This is true even for the Democratic Party primaries so far. The principal reason why ordinary Democrats continue to vote for Carter despite his identification with the Trilateral Commission is the fact that Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Eastern Establishment, is considered a worse evil than even the hated Trilateral Commission. The Democratic vote that goes for LaRouche, for example the 20 percent vote in the New Hampshire primary, represents the more sophisticated and intellectually tougher voters who have reached the conclusion that what is worth fighting for in this year’s presidential election is a result which will deny the liberal, antiAmerican Eastern Establishment any access whatsoever.
to the Executive of our government. Thus, despite the notoriety the Trilateral Commission has achieved so far, the real issue in the election is the liberal Eastern Establishment, and within this, the Trilateral Commission draws attention because it is, as it was meant to be, a more visible instrument of the liberal establishment, for the purpose of drawing to itself the fire of popular outrage. Right now, upward of 35 to 40 pamphlets, brochures, books, and major essays about and against the Trilateral Commission are circulating around the country, totaling millions of copies reaching and informing to varying degrees (and occasionally misinforming) the electorate. This publication is now offered to the public to place the issue of the Trilateral Commission in its proper perspective, within its proper context of the liberal Eastern Establishment, to clarify the fundamental policy issues on which the Eastern liberals pin their efforts at this time, and to identify the special «point man» role the establishment has assigned to the Commission. The liberal Eastern Establishment, for which the Trilateral Commission is a special-purpose instrumentality for a limited period of time, is a grouping of powerful families in New York, Boston, Connecticut, and elsewhere, which exercises permanent control over the nation’s major universities, investment banks, law firms, and federal civil service, and through them, over an important number of manufacturing corporations. This control per se does not necessarily have to be evil It is the purpose to which it is used, the policy to which it is used that makes it evil or good.
The Tool of the British Obligarchy
he principal use to which this social power has been used increasingly since the assassination of President McKinley and decisively since the accession to power of President Woodrow Wilson, is to control the foreign policy of the United States on behalf of the ruling aristocracy of Great Britain. The Eastern Establishment itself is not the center of ultimate power, it is an instrumentality on behalf of policies of the British oligarchy. Most Americans, upon being informed of this fact, react with incredulity, even the most committed antiliberals among them. It is however an easily proved fact. What no American will deny is that all those policies generally identified as liberal in the domestic domain, have the unmistakable stench of direct and outspoken hostility to American nationalism. This is the case for every domestic policy from the issue of school prayer, to pledging allegiance to the flag in public schools, to the issues of nuclear energy production, defense preparedness, universal military training versus the all-professional army, and so forth. This British-controlled liberal Eastern Establishment proclaims in its publications that the international order which was organized in the aftermath of the Second World War—the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and even NATO was all organized for the fundamental strategic proposition that the single most dangerous force in world affairs is nationalism, especially including American nationalism, which these supranational institutions must try to bridle, contain, erode, and finally eliminate. This liberal doctrine of unbending opposition to nationalism is an idea the British oligarchy developed in the beginning of the 20th century when the power of the British Empire began to wane. British power waned because four other major nations in the world community, namely the United States, Germany, France, and Japan, all overtook Great Britain in industrial production. Russia, with advice from American economists in the Hamilton and Carey tradition, was also beginning to threaten British industrial supremacy. This occurred in the last two decades of the 19th century. The strategists of the British Empire realized that all these nations were built up in such a short period of time because they based their economic policies upon a decidedly antiliberal economic theory, the theory of dirigism, identified with the theoretical works of Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, and also with the works of the great American economists Henry and Mathew Carey. Japan accomplished its economic miracle in the Meiji revolution by inviting and honoring American System economists; Germany was built into a major industrial power because it followed the policies of Friedrich List, the great economist who was educated in the United States under Carey and then returned to his country to organize the German customs union. It is List who is credited with coining the term «American System» of political economy. Similarly, France used the Colbert-Richelieu tradition in economic science which then inspired Alexander H a m i l t o n ‘ s ideas. The British oligarchy knew that in order to survive, it had to combat and defeat these other major nations. To do that, it had to intensify its efforts to spread its own liberal economic doctrines to combat the power of the «American System» ideas of national economy. The First World War was fought on these issues. The Treaty of Versailles was imposed because of these issues. The Second World War was started because of this ongoing unresolved conflict. And finally, the world order that was created after the Second World War around the United Nations was designed by the liberals to curb and contain the forces of nationalism. It is not true that the British oligarchy opposes only some kinds of nationalism and likes some others, depending on the nation. The perpetuation of its existence as a morally corrupt social layer depends on general opposition, in principle, to the concept of nationalism in general. That is why the British oligarchs did not bat an eyelash when they destroyed their own British economy and British industry. The principal instrument Britain has used to successfully impose its world policies during the 20th century, despite Britain’s own drastically shrinking material power, has been what we call the liberal Eastern Establishment in the United States. Before, during, and after World War I, the Eastern Establishment functioned primarily through the think tanks in its major universities, Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and so forth. It was from Princeton, owned and run by Morgan Guaranty, a British bank, that Woodrow Wilson came. Later, foundations and institutions started to proliferate, along with more special-purpose think tanks, incorporating increasingly greater chunks of policy-formulating and policy-making functions. Throughout this period, New York’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been playing the central coordinating role, functioning as the clearinghouse for the ideas and consensus of the liberal establishment. At the end of World War II, two major «blueblood» institutions were launched, the Ditchley Foundation and the Aspen Institute, both of which proclaim as their official purpose the maintenance and augmentation of the «special relationship» between the United States and Great Britain. One of the two, the Ditchley Foundation, publicly advocates dual citizenship between England and the United States, omitting to inform the unsuspecting public that England does not possess the legal category of «citizen» but that of «subject.» The membership lists of the CFR, Aspen, Ditchley and the Trilateral Commission are overlapping. Each of the organizations does not represent a different «tendency» or «faction» or even different «interests» within the liberal Eastern Establishment. Each merely represents a different function. Just as a British gentleman can belong to many clubs at the same time, his membership in «Pall Mall,» the «Boors,» the «Flakes,» and the «Nautical Club» neither adds nor subtracts from his essential character, his being, above all, a «British gentleman.» The same with the Eastern Establishment here and its different organizations.
De Gaulle greets his fellow countrymen upon the liberation of France: «The British-controlled Eastern Establishment proclaims in its publications that the international order which was organized in the aftermath of the Second World War— the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and even NATO—was all organized for the fundamental strategic proposition that the single most dangerous force in world affairs is nationalism, especially including American nationalism.»
Why the Trilateral Commission
The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 for a particular purpose. The London-New York leadership over the rest of the Western Alliance was increasingly being challenged because the post World War II liberal economic system was discernibly going to pieces. France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and also American nationalist forces coalesced behind the Nixon presidency were proposing a new orientation in favor of a commitment for renewed industrial development worldwide. Such a policy would have meant industrialization of key sectors of the Third World and thus the eventual emergence of new, sound, and strong nations—a repeat of the British nightmare at the turn of the century. Such a policy would also have meant that France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan, with their special relations with Third World nations, would experience an industrial boom, as their economies mobilized to provide the capital goods needed by the new nations. In the beginning of 1973 the West German deutschemark had already smashed the British pound and by July-August was on its way to gaining hegemony over the ailing U.S. dollar. Then two things happened. David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission and Henry Kissinger manufactured the 1973 October War in the Middle East, which ruined the oil supplies of both Western Europe and Japan. Kissinger, holding the oil weapon over the allies’ heads, forced them to go slow and relent. It took European industry three years to recover from the shock.
The Trilateral Commission, a special-purpose team born out of the emergency, is a gathering of influential individuals from North America, Europe, and Japan, all of whom share the same liberal, antinationalist philosophy of the British oligarchy and all of whom cooperate to prevent the national forces within their respective countries from exerting influence on policy. The Trilateral Commission was hastily put together for a crude hatchet job, running such out-front errands as manipulating presidential elections and circulating policy papers with such provocative ideas as «The End of Democracy,» «Zero Growth,» and so forth. It was typical that a man who enjoys the reputation of being New York’s stupidest banker, David Rockefeller, was induced and manipulated to take all the credit for the operation.
Therefore, in order to guage the stated programs and the activities of the Trilateral Commission with a measure of justice, one must first guage the current thinking and policy concerns of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the mother entity of the Trilateral Commission, as well as the supranational grouping into which the CFR blends, the so-called Bilderberg Society in which the nobility of England meets with the Belgian and Dutch royalty, and the representatives of the House of Hapsburg.
https://mellqvist.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/the-real-story-behind-the-trilateral-commission/
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/olli/class-materials/Henry_Kissinger_Session_4.pdf
yup, original point was nkla is not the only 1 selling in the usa
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173971485
looks the same as nkla...
yes, this can be some serious competition for nkla....all these news release were 10 months ago
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hyundai-motor-premieres-commercialized-model-of-its-xcient-fuel-cell-tractor-and-vision-for-hydrogen-mobility-in-us/
https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/newsroom/detail/0000000242
https://landline.media/hyundai-showcases-xcient-fuel-cell-class-8-tractor-for-north-america/
take it for what it's worth this is part of hyundai's pr
SEOUL, September 14, 2022 – Hyundai Motor Company announced today that it has secured $3.5 million in 2021 Targeted Airshed Grant (TAG) funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to deploy five XCIENT Fuel Cell electric trucks in California.
First Element Fuel (FEF), the largest hydrogen-refueling station operator in the U.S., will deploy the Class-8 heavy-duty trucks to deliver liquified hydrogen to their refueling stations for the next five years, including one year of demonstration with reporting duties to U.S. EPA and four years of commercial operation.
Last year, Hyundai Motor also announced its NorCal Zero project, also known as Zero-Emission Regional Truck Operations with Fuel Cell Electric Trucks. Hyundai Motor will begin operating 30 Class 8 XCIENT Fuel Cell electric trucks in California starting in the second quarter of 2023. This will be the largest commercial deployment of Class 8 hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks in the U.S.
Launched in 2020 by Hyundai Motor, XCIENT Fuel Cell is the world’s first mass-produced hydrogen fuel cell electric heavy-duty truck. The company has already deployed 47 units in Switzerland where they have accumulated more than four million kilometers in driving as of July 2022.
Hyundai Motor will leverage insights from these public-private partnerships to further drive commercial vehicle decarbonization through hydrogen fuel cell electric technology advancement.
https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/3648
Hyundai Motor Puts XCIENT Fuel Cell Electric Trucks into Commercial Fleet Operation in California
September 14, 2022
https://www.hyundainews.com/en-us/releases/3648
Hyundai XCIENT Class 8 Truck Gives Hydrogen a Place to Shine
May 12, 2023
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a43827451/hyundai-xcient-class-8-fuel-cell-semi-truck-drive/
now that he lied does he go to jail and pay multi million dollar fines?
Shiba Inu & Other Memecoins See 3,000% Spike In Volume: Good Sign For Rally?
https://www.newsbtc.com/shiba-inu/shiba-inu-memecoins-3000-spike-volume-rally/
https://pro.kraken.com/app/trade/shib-usd
what market are you buying on
yup. slanderous statements already on youtube
Genetically Modified Ingredients in Most US Cheeses
March 04, 2024
Story at-a-glance
Traditionally, cheese was made with just four ingredients: milk, salt, starter culture and animal rennet
Rennet is used as a clotting agent to curdle the milk into cheese, separating the liquid parts of milk from the solids. It’s an essential part of the cheese making process
Today, there are four types of rennet used in the cheese making industry: animal rennet, vegetable rennet, microbial rennet, and a genetically modified version called FPC (fermentation-produced chymosin), made by Pfizer
Bioengineered chymosin (FPC) was granted Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) status, which exempted Pfizer was exempt from the pre-approval requirements that apply to other new food additives. This despite the fact that studies have detailed concerns about safety
An estimated 90% of North American cheese is made with FPC rennet, and ingredient labels do not distinguish between bioengineered rennet and the original animal-based type so consumers have no way of knowing what they’re eating
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/04/gmo-cheese.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20240304_HL2&foDate=false&mid=DM1538580&rid=2061035668
Genetically modified FPC — To overcome some of the shortcomings of the vegetable and microbial rennets like the potential bitter cheese taste, scientists have leveraged genetic engineering technology to create new, genetically modified species that generate these milk-curdling enzymes.
Introducing the most common alternative to animal rennet in cheese making — FPC, which stands for Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC). (Chymosin referring to the enzyme that curdles milk, and is naturally present in the stomach lining of ruminant animals).
In fact, 90% of the cheese manufactured in the U.S. uses these enzymes from genetically modified organisms.9
FPC was created by the one and only Pfizer (biotech company) and is made possible by using CRISPR gene editing technology10 where the genomes of living organisms are modified. The “safety” of FPC was evaluated by a 90 day trial in rats.11
Shocking Finding: Life Expectancy Continues to Plummet
March 02, 2024
Story at-a-glance
Provisional estimates and finalized reports reveal a significant decline in American life expectancy with young adults bearing the brunt of excess deaths
The gender life expectancy gap in the U.S. has reached its widest point since 1996, primarily driven by COVID-19 and the opioid crisis, highlighting systemic issues in health care and societal structures
Contrary to historical trends, the burden of death now falls disproportionately on young and working-aged Americans, prompting concerns about the underlying causes and the absence of a public health response
Amidst censorship and controversy, there's a growing call for a thorough investigation into pandemic management, including lockdowns, treatment protocols and vaccine deployment, to understand the root causes of excess deaths
The need for a new approach to global health is underscored by the current crisis, with emphasis on addressing health disparities and reconnecting with consciousness, as advocated in my forthcoming book, "The Power of Choice"
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/02/life-expectancy-continues-to-plummet.aspx?ui=23bc1bd9fcb4b3356028a747bd75a4fe7be0ae6a710a0f48676267071f8cecf5&sd=20220710&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20240302_HL2&foDate=false&mid=DM1537831&rid=2059432466
Young Americans Are Dying at Frightening Pace
In a December 12, 2023, article for The Hill,15 Kory also reviewed the actuarial data, which reveals another shocking shift: The burden of death now falls disproportionately on the young and working-aged, a demographic that once epitomized health and vitality within American society. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's decision to archive its excess deaths webpage in September, ceasing updates, adds a layer of mystery to this already perplexing situation.
The financial implications for insurers are profound. The surge in death claims since 2020 reflects the gravest increase since the 1918 influenza pandemic, prompting calls for an early-warning system to safeguard the insured against emerging health threats. As noted by Kory:16
“Unlike in the pandemic’s early phase, these deaths are not primarily among the old. For people 65 and over, deaths in the second quarter of 2023 were 6% below the pre-pandemic norm, according to a new report from the Society of Actuaries.
Mortality was 26% higher among insured 35-to-44-year-olds, and 19% higher for 25-to-34-year-olds, continuing a death spike that peaked in the third quarter of 2021 at a staggering 101% and 79% above normal, respectively.”
The registrant had outstanding 1,335,615,165 shares of common stock as of February 26, 2024.
Common stock, $0.0001 par value, 1,600,000,000 and 800,000,000 shares authorized as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, 1,330,083,002 and 512,935,485 shares issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively
https://www.sec.gov/ixviewer/ix.html?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1731289/000173128924000053/nkla-20231231.htm
This president says “NO!” to the globalists and saves his country
What if a president of a nation would stand up radically against the evil elites, and rebuild his nation so that the people will prosper?
That’s exactly what Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, did. A few years ago he took a bold stand against the criminal globalists and said “NO MORE!”. He kicked them out of El Salvador and started rebuilding this beautiful country from the ground up. He removed corrupt judges and installed righteous rulers instead, along with many more dramatic reforms.
As a result, his nation is flourishing as never before, which is a bright beacon of hope for the rest of the world.
During his revolutionary speech at CPAC last week, this brave president rocked the United States, and challenged them to follow his example. This is perhaps the most powerful speech - and the most important one - ever to be given to America, and the world.
It is possible to resist the satanic globalists, who want to enslave the entire human race to their cruel claws of control and suppression. It is possible to build a better world, where the people thrive instead of suffering. It is possible to restore our nations without the so-called “help” from psychopathic billionaires who want to gobble up everything for themselves.
There is a beautiful way forward.
Make sure to listen to this phenomenal message from Nayib Bukele, which has inspired many leaders in the United States and worldwide. And make sure to spread it far and wide.
https://stopworldcontrol.com/salvador/
'Get This Man Back In The White House': Nigel Farage Makes Impassioned Call To Elect Trump
Feb 24, 2024
BREAKING NEWS: Tulsi Gabbard Defends Trump From Nikki Haley At CPAC As South Carolina Primary Nears
Feb 22, 2024
Nearly Every Country Signs On to a Sweeping Deal to Protect Nature
Roughly 190 nations, aiming to halt a dangerous decline in biodiversity, agreed to preserve 30 percent of the planet’s land and seas. The United States is not officially a participant.
Updated Dec. 20, 2022
Overall, the deal lays out a suite of 23 environmental targets. The most prominent, known as 30x30, would place 30 percent of land and sea under protection. Currently, about 17 percent of the planet’s land and roughly 8 percent of its oceans are protected, with restrictions on activities like fishing, farming and mining.
The United States is just one of two countries in the world that are not party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, largely because Republicans, who are typically opposed to joining treaties, have blocked United States membership. That means the American delegation was required to participate from the sidelines. (The only other country that has not joined the treaty is the Holy See.)
President Biden has signed an executive order that would similarly place 30 percent of United States land and waters under protection, but any legislative efforts to support that goal are expected to face strong opposition when Republicans take control of the House in January.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/climate/biodiversity-cop15-montreal-30x30.html
any attempt to resist or oppose a force will ultimately be unsuccessful, as the outcome is predetermined and inevitable. It is often used to convey the idea that fighting against a powerful or overwhelming force is pointless.
i'm surprised Greece hasn't acted
nothing will become of it, carry on
trump will never be president again, 4 more years of biden or someone that will carry out his agenda "Resistance is Futile"
What is 30x30?
President Biden did not coin the phrase “30x30.” The goal of preserving 30% of lands and waters by the year 2030 was first proposed by a group of scientists writing in Science in 2019. They argued that in order to address biodiversity loss and climate change, humans would need to conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s surface over the next decade.
The 30x30 slogan was picked up by the High Ambition Coalition, which currently includes more than 50 countries that have committed to the 30x30 goal.
The Biden administration is pursuing this goal in the United States through the “America the Beautiful” initiative. The president launched it in a 2021 executive order. He directed the Department of the Interior to partner with the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality to “develop initial recommendations on how to advance an inclusive and collaborative conservation vision.”
These agencies released an initial report in May 2021 that outlines key principles that will guide their conservation efforts. The initiative will be “locally-led and voluntary” and will seek to, among other things, “honor private property rights and support the voluntary stewardship efforts of private landowners.” The federal government will pursue this goal primarily through executive action by federal agencies but could also include federal legislation like the Great American Outdoors Act and the most recent infrastructure bill.
As Plumer explained, the initiative would be voluntary and would work primarily through tools and programs already being used by the federal, state, and local agencies. While the sporting community originally met the plan with some hesitation about how restrictive the protective measures would be and whether they would have a seat at the table, such concerns have largely been addressed. A recent report from the National Wildlife Federation on game species habitat loss noted, “Most recently, the federal government has endorsed 30x30 in its ‘America the Beautiful’ initiative with an explicit recognition of the role of hunters and anglers in its success.”
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/public-lands-and-waters/what-president-bidens-30x30-plan-means-for-hunters-and-anglers
Biden’s “30 By 30 Plan” – a Slap at American Private Property Rights
Condemnation and “strong-arming” will likely be the answer.
Even though it won’t make the nightly news, federal agencies are already implementing this “Biden vision.”
On February 11, 2021, the Acting Secretary of the Interior signed an Order eliminating the Trump Administration’s requirement for state and local government approval prior to the federal government’s acquisition of more private lands with moneys from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
Shockingly, that Order claimed that allowing local governments to have a voice in land acquisition directly impacting their counties “undermined” the program.
While LWCF moneys are touted as being used to “secure public access and improve recreational opportunities,” the money can also be used to acquire private lands into federal ownership.
Because no property taxes are paid when land is owned by the federal government and since there will be no jobs associated when the newly acquired land is left in its “natural state,” the acquisition of these lands and the elimination of more uses from the federal lands will absolutely harm the local tax base and employment opportunities that supports rural schools, roads, and other necessary services.
With the passage of the Great Americans Outdoor Act in 2020, Congress already will make $900 million a year available for the LWCF, but they will need billions more to achieve this radical acquisition goal.
All of rural America and anyone who believes that local control of resources and that the American farmer and rancher is the backbone of this country should be alarmed at the notion that only the federal government, owning land in its “natural state,” can combat climate change and the loss of biodiversity.
I think we are in for a fight to protect American agriculture and our rural way of life.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private-property-rights/
HITTING PAUSE ON NEW OIL AND GAS LEASING
CREATING JOBS BY INVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY & RESTORATION
CONSERVING 30% OF AMERICA’S LANDS AND OCEAN BY 2030
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/fact-sheet-president-biden-take-action-uphold-commitment-restore-balance-public-lands
LOS ANGELES, CA - JUNE 08: Former Los Angeles Dodgers first baseman Steve Garvey takes the field against the New York Yankees for an Old Timers game before the game betweenthe Atlanta Braves and the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium on June 8, 2013 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Stephen Dunn/Getty Images) /
https://dodgersway.com/2019/09/10/dodgers-garvey-iron-man/
2024 U.S. Senate campaign
On October 10, 2023, Garvey announced that he was running in the 2024 United States Senate election in California as a Republican.[35][11] Garvey is seeking the Senate seat that was held by Democrat Dianne Feinstein from 1992 until her death in 2023; following Feinstein's death, Democrat Laphonza Butler was appointed to the seat by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Garvey
If Mr. Garvey did make it to the general election, he would face long odds. California has not elected a Republican to the Senate in more than 30 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/us/politics/steve-garvey-california-senate.html
On this day: “No taxation without representation!”
The Stamp Act Congress met on this day in New York in 1765, a meeting that led nine Colonies to declare the English Crown had no right to tax Americans who lacked representation in British Parliament.
The Crown and British Parliament didn’t exactly agree with that idea, and within 10 years, the sides would be at war over some of the concepts endorsed by the 27 delegates in three documents sent by ship to England.
The turmoil started earlier in 1765, when Parliament approved a little-noticed measure in Britain called the Stamp Act. On March 22, 1765, Parliament required colonists to pay taxes on every page of printed paper they used. The tax also included fees for playing cards and dice.
The proceeds from the Act would “further defray… the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing” the Colonies from attacks; it was a measure to make the Colonies pay costs for hosting British troops on the continent.
The new tax amounted to a sales tax for the colonies, which didn’t sit well with many residents who considered themselves quite removed from such measures. The protests were based on a legal principle that the colonial legislatures only had the power to tax residents who had representatives in those legislatures. And even though some colonies had official agents to Parliament, like Benjamin Franklin, no colonies had sitting representatives in the British Parliament.
In May 1765, Virginia’s Patrick Henry wrote the Virginia Resolves, which clearly laid out the “taxation without representation” argument. The protests against the Stamp Act also were particularly strong in Massachusetts. That summer, Massachusetts called for a meeting of all the colonies – a Stamp Act Congress – to be held in New York in October 1765. Committees of Correspondence were also formed in the colonies to protest the Act.
On October 9, 1765, representatives from nine of the eighteen colonies showed up at New York City’s Federal Hall. The legislatures in Virginia and Georgia didn’t allow representatives to go to a meeting that some felt went against British constitutional law.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/no-taxation-without-representation
Boston Tea Party
The Boston Tea Party was a political protest that occurred on December 16, 1773, at Griffin’s Wharf in Boston, Massachusetts. American colonists, frustrated and angry at Britain for imposing “taxation without representation,” dumped 342 chests of tea, imported by the British East India Company into the harbor. The event was the first major act of defiance to British rule over the colonists. It showed Great Britain that Americans would not tolerate taxation and tyranny sitting down, and rallied American patriots across the 13 colonies to fight for independence.
Why Did the Boston Tea Party Happen?
In the 1760s, Britain was deep in debt, so British Parliament imposed a series of taxes on American colonists to help pay those debts.
The Stamp Act of 1765 taxed colonists on virtually every piece of printed paper they used, from playing cards and business licenses to newspapers and legal documents. The Townshend Acts of 1767 went a step further, taxing essentials such as paint, paper, glass, lead and tea.
The British government felt the taxes were fair since much of its debt was earned fighting wars on the colonists’ behalf. The colonists, however, disagreed. They were furious at being taxed without having any representation in Parliament, and felt it was wrong for Britain to impose taxes on them to gain revenue.
Boston Massacre Enrages Colonists
On March 5, 1770, a street brawl happened in Boston between American colonists and British soldiers.
Later known as the Boston Massacre, the fight began after an unruly group of colonists—frustrated with the presence of British soldiers in their streets—flung snowballs, ice and oyster shells at a British sentinel guarding the Boston Customs House.
Reinforcements arrived and opened fire on the mob, killing five colonists and wounding six. The Boston Massacre and its fallout further incited the colonists’ rage towards Britain.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party#Facts:%20What%20Happened%20at%20The%20Boston%20Tea%20Party
yes, the republicans want to sit at the side lines and get paid for doing nothing.... there is no more representation for the people, so why do we need a congress?