Decades of Destruction

Elected officials, representatives, or other members of the United States government, named below, have knowingly, willingly and maliciously, by the acceptance and passage of laws that restrict, regulate, and/or infringe on the Constitutionally protected right of the citizens to have and bear arms as protected by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States of America.

In direct violation of 5 U.S. Code § 7311, 18 U.S.C. 241, and or 18 U.S. Code § 242, by the above named actions the elected officials have attempted to over throw the Republic form of government, the protections provided by the Republic form of government, and blatantly, openly, and with treasonous intent passed restrictive laws which deprive the citizens of their rights, privileges, or immunities secured and/or protected by the Constitution, including, but not limited to, forcing citizens to pay fees for background checks, purchase government regulated concealed carry permits, which is nothing more than the government forcing citizens to pay for registration and licensing before being able to exercise a specific protected right.

With the passage and legislation of these laws the people involved in drafting, developing, and submitting these laws have 'legalized' violations of Amendment IV, with unreasonable search of  papers and effects which violates the citizens right to privacy.

These same elected, appointed, or otherwise employed representatives have conspired with each other to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate the citizens of the United States of America (USA) in their free exercise and/or enjoyment of their rights and/or privileges secured to them by the Constitution which is a direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241.

1. Feb. 6, 2019 HR 1025 - UIGHUR Act of 2019, 116th Congress (2019-2020)
2. Dec. 6, 2017 HR 38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, 116th Congress -  Bill Passed - House
3. March 16, 2017 HR 1181 Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act 115th Congress - Bill Passed - House
4. Feb. 2, 2017 H J Res 40 Providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 Joint Resolution, 115th Congress - Passed - House
5. Feb. 26, 2016 HR 2406 Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015, 114th Congress - Bill Passed - House
6. July 16, 2014 H Amdt 1098 Prohibits District of Columbia from Implementing Certain Firearm Laws Amendment Adopted - House
7. Nov. 16, 2011 HR 822 Requiring State Reciprocity for Carrying Concealed Firearms Bill Passed - House
8. July 28, 2010 HR 5827 Exempting Guns from an Estate for Bankruptcy Purposes Bill Passed - House
9. May 20, 2009 HR 627 Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 Concurrence Vote Passed - House
10. Sept. 17, 2008 HR 6842 Repealing Portions of the D.C. Firearm Ban Bill Passed - House
11. Sept. 26, 2006 HR 5092 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bill Passed - House
12. June 28, 2006 H Amdt 1156 Trigger Lock Amendment Amendment Adopted - House
13. Oct. 20, 2005 S 397 Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill Bill Passed - House
14. April 9, 2003 HR 1036 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act Bill Passed - House
15. July 10, 2002 HR 4635 Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act Bill Passed - House
16. June 18, 1999 H Amdt 215 24 Hour Background Check Amendment Amendment Adopted - House
17. June 18, 1999 H Amdt 216 72 Hour Background Check Amendment Amendment Rejected - House
18. June 18, 1999 HR 2122 Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act Bill Failed - House
19. Feb. 24, 1998 HR 424 Minimum Sentences for Gun Crimes Bill Passed - House
20. March 22, 1996 HR 125 Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995 Bill Passed - House
21. May 5, 1994 HR 4296 Regulation of Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Bill Passed - House
22. Nov. 23, 1993 HR 1025 Brady Handgun Bill Conference Report Adopted - House
23. Nov. 10, 1993 H Amdt 390 Instant Background Checks for Gun Purchase Amendment Amendment Adopted - House
24. Nov. 10, 1993 HR 1025 Brady Handgun Bill Bill Passed - House

In view of the aforementioned facts, we the people and citizens of the United States do hereby demand the immediate resignation of the following:

Nancy Pelosi

Chuck Schumer
Maxine Waters
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ilhan Omar
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Fredricka Wilson
Kirsten Gillibrand
and ALL other elected representatives that voted yea/yes on the above mentioned bills that obviously infringe on the Second Amendment! There are decades of documented violations of the US Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment!

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

No where does the Second Amendment mention the local, county, state, or federal government having the authority or power to determine whether ANY person is worthy, eligible, and/or mentally capable of possessing or owning a gun/firearm, including people who were previously convicted of a felony, under the current oppressive laws.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While the Right to Privacy is mentioned in other Amendments, it is considered one of the rights of a free people. All background checks violate that right to privacy by forcing the consumer to divulge private personal information to strangers who may or may not use that information for nefarious purposes!

5 U.S. Code § 7311 - Loyalty and striking

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.
_{(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 524.)}

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
_{(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §?103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §?7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §?60006(a), title XXXII, §§?320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§?604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)}

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
_{(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §?103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §?7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §?60006(b), title XXXII, §§?320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§?604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)}

Government Overreach or Regulation

The false POTUS, from 2008 to 2016, signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax, and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.
However, the bigger issues are never mentioned -

1. Does the federal, state, county, or local government have the power to demand the people engage in financial transactions (contract) with a third party?
2. When, where, and how did the 'government' acquire this power?
3. IF the federal government has the power mentioned above, is it reasonable to believe they can also demand citizens purchase vehicles, to legitimize the requirement to purchase 'car' insurance?
4. IF the federal government has the powers mentioned above, is it reasonable to believe they can also 'regulate' what types, brands, and/or design of vehicle, or any other product, can be made available to the people?
5. IF the federal government has the powers mentioned above, is it reasonable to believe the government can also demand the people only buy 'healthy' food, by removing all products the government deems as 'unhealthy' from the retail market?
6. Unless the government removes all private health care companies and only offers government subsidized healthcare isn't this 'tax' a violation of free commerce?
7. IF, the affordable care act is a tax*, shouldn't all insurance premiums go directly to a government entity?
8. IF, the affordable care act is a tax*, when, how and why did the government give a private industry, health care insurance, the right, power, and/or authority to collect payments for services rendered as taxes?
9. Citizens of America have the right to contract! That is, hire someone for a specific job, task, or to provide a service! They also have the right to refuse to contract without fear of fines, penalties, or violating restrictive government policies! This is the definition of government overreach, violating the peoples right to refuse to contract, and further financially harming them with mandatory fines for exercising that right!
10. Since the government requires people to have health insurance, and have called it a tax, does that mean ALL 'services' received by a consumer are 'taxes', or just insurance, or just health insurance?
11. IF health insurance, or any other 'service' type product purchased by a consumer, is a 'tax' - WHY are they allowed and/or required to charge and collect 'sales', or any other, tax on the transaction? Isn't that taxing a tax?
12. The Constitution** gives Congress the power to regulate commerce***. Where does the Constitution mention creating a financial burden on the people?

When 'regulating' commerce goes to far it becomes totalitarianism! Regulating commerce, in the old sense of the word, should be restricted to ensuring 'fair' trade between the states, foreign countries with the united State of America, and with Indian tribes, not the kind or type services offered, the products sold, how much they produced, manufactured, or have in storage, especially when the government, either by design or accident, violate the people's rights! As we have seen, flooding the market with a variety of products, especially vehicles, does not drive the price down, the manufacturing costs up, or otherwise 'damage' the economy, the people, the state, or the federal government.

*Tax

law refers to the rules made by the government to collect revenues. Taxes can be imposed on individuals, businesses, corporations, and other legal entities.

**Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

***Commerce.

The exchange of goods, products, or any type of Personal Property. Trade and traffic carried on between different peoples or states and its inhabitants, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities but also the instrumentalities, agencies, and means by which business is accomplished.

Regardless of how the government or any other entity tries to twist the word commerce to fit their desired narrative: Commerce is the necessary actions that keep businesses in business, i.e. purchasing wholesale or manufacturing products for retail sale such as the USA contracting with foreign countries for goods and services and the exchange there of for the benefit of the respective countries, manufacturers producing products for retail sale - from the manufacturer/producer to a retailer NOT from the retailer to the consumer! Employees do not engage in commerce when they exchange their time and effort for benefits and/or monetary gain - that is a barter - and NOT subject to taxes! The exchange of paper bills and coins or an electronic transaction is a barter; instead of working or exchanging something else of equal or greater value for the item!

How Law Fails

The following case were found at saylordotorg.githun.io

Generally a defendant’s status in society is not a criminal act, such as being an alcoholic or a drug addict. Status is who the defendant is, not what the defendant does. Similar to punishment for an involuntary act, when the government punishes an individual for status, it is essentially targeting that individual for circumstances that are outside his or her control. This punishment may be cruel and unusual pursuant to the Eighth Amendment if it is disproportionate to the defendant’s behavior.

In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the US Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the Eighth Amendment to punish an individual for the status of being a drug addict—even if the drugs to which the defendant is addicted are illegal. 

The Court compared drug addiction to an illness, such as leprosy or venereal disease. Punishing a defendant for being sick not only is inhumane but also does not specifically deter, similar to a punishment for an involuntary act.

In contrast, the case of Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968), the US Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for “drunk in public,” in spite of the defendant’s status as an alcoholic. The Court held that it is difficult but not impossible for an alcoholic to resist the urge to drink, so the behavior the statute criminalized was voluntary. 

Also, the Court ruled that the state has an interest in treating alcoholism and preventing alcohol-related crimes that could injure the defendant and others. Pursuant to Powell, statutes that criminalize voluntary acts that arise from status are constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

If the defendant can control the actions at issue in spite of his or her status, the defendant’s conduct can be constitutionally criminalized and punished pursuant to the Eighth Amendment. This is where the law fails to equally prosecute or protect, respectively, the perpetrator and the victims.

While it is difficult, but not impossible, for a drug addict to resist the urge to enter an altered state of mind by using drugs. It is a conscious and voluntary choice before they facilitate the introduction of drug(s) into their body. Regardless of whether that introduction is oral, injected, smoked, 'snorted', or by any other means. 

If it was impossible to resist the urge to use drugs nobody would seek treatment; let alone successfully complete a drug treatment program. 

Alcoholism is also a treatable illness which is not always 'controllable' by the alcoholic. The State should also have an interest in treating drug addicts and preventing drug addicted crimes, which generally include promoting the sale and use of illicit drugs, theft, burglary, breaking and entering, and other serious crimes which could, and often do, injure the drug addict and others, but not at the expense of innocent taxpayers who are not involved in the crime or the addicted perpetrator!

Pueblo Coordinated Election

Coming ballot issues up for vote on November 5, 2019:

What voter in their right mind would EVER vote for something like this?

 “....a voter-approved revenue change that may be collected, retained, and spent by the county consistent with this ballot issue but without statutory or constitutional limitation or condition, including article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, section 29-1-301, Colorado revised statutes, or ANY other law?”

EVERY 'ballot issue' has this paragraph attached! When you ask voters to knowingly, willingly, and ILLEGALLY violate the document that was meant to RESTRAIN government, not allow it to arbitrarily grant itself MORE power, you know you are committing treason!

Ballot Issue No. 1A Vote: NO

By your own admission you are wanting to violate the Colorado Constitution yet AGAIN! This time you want NO restrictions on where and how you 'spend' those funds. As a constituent and registered voter I say absolutely NOT! This sounds like a ponzi scheme, with tax payer funds, to pocket the money and NOT be accountable for it! Section 20 already states, in part “ Revenue collected, kept, or spent illegally since four full fiscal years before a suit is filed shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest from the initial conduct. “ admitting the state/county/local government(s) already knows they are, have been, and/or will in the future 'illegally' spend tax payer funds!

Ballot Issue No. 1B: Vote: NO

Increase taxes on marijuana (cannabis)? Really?? We, the residents of Pueblo, have already been asked/refunded the EXCESS tax you collected on 'marijuana' sales because you can't keep your accounting straight. Within this ballot the authors admit they are NOT going to fund more scholarships and put the increased funds toward the over crowding problem at the jail. NO, more taxes until YOU can spend the already collected funds on projects YOU said needed to be funded with the previous tax increases! Having the LOWEST 'marijuana' tax rates in the state is a GOOD thing! As for the over crowding in the Pueblo county jail or the Pueblo city jail, maybe the law makers should STOP making laws that violate the citizens rights, while aiding and abetting the criminal illegals in this city/state, and stop arresting citizens for disobeying those unConstitutional restrictions you want to call laws! Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado Constitution, already states, in part “Revenue collected, kept, or spent illegally since four full fiscal years before a suit is filed shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest from the initial conduct.” admitting the state/county/local government(s) already knows they are, have been, and/or will in the future 'illegally' spend tax payer funds! Now you want remove the ability for the citizens to hold the city accountable for violating ANY law!

Ballot Issue No. 4A Vote: NO

WHY do the schools have such HUGE debts? Issues at the schools should have been addressed BEFORE they became 'critical' issues! The fact that the schools are in debt, needing 'critical' repairs, and requesting MORE tax payer funds tells me that previous funding was NOT used appropriately!Creating a Citizen's Bond Advisory Committee, aka wasting more tax payer funds, to 'ensure transparency of spending associated with the bond issue' is an admission the city has, in the past, and will in the future misappropriate funds if they are not carefully watched.

Ballot Issue No. 4B Vote NO

For the same reasons as Ballot Issue No. 4A!

Ballot Issue No. 5A Vote: NO

Once bonds for schools are issued there is NO end to the 'payments' or the requested increase in taxes. Schools, politicians, city council members, and state representatives see a money pit. When they run out of money, because the requested amount is NEVER enough, they turn to the residents and request more and more and more... with no end in sight.

Ballot Issue No. 6A Vote: NO

Pueblo West, wants to be their own city/town, and now want the entire state to raise taxes to fund a fire department for them?! The entire state of Colorado should not be investing in ONE small development! Another 'exception' to the Colorado Constitution, imagine that! You want the residents of the city of Pueblo to vote on 'issues' that will affect the ENTIRE state – what kind of garbage are you trying to sell? 

Ballot Issue No. 6B Vote: NO

All taxes are just one of the many ways governments punish the residents of a city, county, state, and/or nation for being a citizen! You are being VERY serious about NOT being restrained by ANY law while punishing the citizens for MINOR infractions of the unConstitutional restrictions YOU want to call laws!

Ballot Issue 6C Vote: NO

Again you want to knowingly, willingly, and illegally violate the Colorado Constitution. Since you can't/won't/don't operate within the parameters of the restriction set forth in the Constitution maybe it is time for ALL residents of Colorado to rethink the elected officials we have 'running' the various governments!

Since the citizens/residents of Pueblo voted NO on a previous ballot issue to allow “a voter-approved revenue change that may be collected, retained, and spent by the county consistent with this ballot issue but without statutory or constitutional limitation or condition, including article X, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, section 29-1-301, Colorado revised statutes, or ANY other law.” you think it is appropriate to put it on ALL ballot issues?

NO means NO!

The Deterioration of Nancy Pelosi

Oct 2010 - Pelosi Admits the dems have and are working their plans to take over the government! Nancy Pelosi Makes a Fool of Herself on Charlie Rose's Show!















March 2017 Nancy Pelosi utters gibberish, slurs statements, repeats words! it isn't what she is saying as much as it is how she is saying it! Stumbling over words, repeating thoughts, strange facial spasms!














June 2017 Nancy Pelosi confused about time of day, forgets latest Russia accusations -- 6 minutes later! She makes a claim Trump is attacking medicaid - which is dangerous to children and other living things!

She claims Russia hacked the American election in 2016 and 21 states were compromised - then can't remember what she said!

She claims America has to 'pussyfoot' around when it comes to sanctions on Russia!

Oct 2017 Nancy Pelosi face spasms mar speech; utters gibberish! Symptoms from dementia -While symptoms of dementia can vary greatly, at least two of the following core mental functions must be significantly impaired to be considered dementia:

Memory
Communication and language
Ability to focus and pay attention
Reasoning and judgment
Visual perception

January 2019, Pelosi botches words, suffers face spasms, confuses Dems and GOP

Scary Sh!t

How long have the global elite been trying to over throw America? I remember in the mid to late 70's and early 80's hearing 'rumors' about a New World Order, a Globalist government, and 'concentration' camps for those that can not be converted.

I was young and didn't think much about it. Now, after surviving the horrible regime of the false potus, I have started attempting to debunk some of the 'conspiracy' theories, as they were called back then.

Where to start? Which came first? As I research I may have to rearrange my data into chronological order!

Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, national membership organization and a nonpartisan center for scholars dedicated to producing and disseminating ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. The Council does this by convening meetings; conducting a wide-ranging Studies program; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal covering international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; maintaining a diverse membership; sponsoring Independent Task Forces; and providing up to-date information about the world and U.S. foreign policy on the Council’s website, www.cfr.org.

Josef Mengle - Angel of Death 1935

One of the first methodical studies on trauma-based mind control was conducted by Josef Mengele, a physician working in Nazi concentration camps. He initially gained notoriety for being one of the SS physicians who supervised the selection of arriving prisoners, determining who was to be killed and who was to become a forced laborer. However, he is mostly known for performing grisly human experiments on camp inmates, including children, for which Mengele was called the “Angel of Death”.
Mengele is infamous for his sordid human experiments on concentration camps prisoners, especially on twins. A part of his work that is rarely mentioned however, is his research on mind control. Much of his research in this field was confiscated by the Allies and is still classified to this day.

MK-ULTRA was brought to light by various commissions in the 1970s, including the Rockefeller Commission of 1975. Although it is claimed that the CIA stopped such experiments after these commissions, some whistle-blowers have come forth stating that the project simply went “underground” and Monarch Programming has become the classified successor of MK-ULTRA.
BETA is referred to as “sexual” programming (slaves). This programming eliminates all learned moral convictions and stimulates the primitive instinct, devoid of inhibitions. “Cat” alters may come out at this level. Known as Kitten programming, it is the most visible kind of programming as some female celebrities, models, actresses, and singers have been subjected to this kind of programming. In popular culture, clothing with feline prints often denotes Kitten programming. - Now it makes sense that the hollyweird elite are unhinged nut jobs! Do more research on this - there is a LOT of information on the internet, thanks to the FOIA!

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Paul Warburg, speaking to the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies
June 11, 1976 - EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921

All hail the New World Order

President George Herbert Walker Bush - September 11, 1990
A Speech by George H. W. Bush, President of the U.S.A. Given to a joint session of the United States Congress, Washington D.C. on 11 September 1990.
"Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi Army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act, to check that aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge: A new era--freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."

In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 - "A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchs who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."

According to Cisco Wheeler, a former Illuminati mind control programmer, there are 10 million people who have been programmed as mind controlled slaves using trauma-based MC programs with names like Monarch and MK Ultra. The newer, non-trauma, electronic means of MC programming that grew out of the Montauk Project, may include millions more. Al Bielek, who played a principle role in the development of the Montauk Project, said that there likely 10 million victims of Montauk style mind control programming worldwide, the majority located in the USA. He also said that there are covert Montauk Programming 'Centers' in every major city in the U.S.

The NWO global conspirators manifest their agenda through the skillful manipulation of human emotions, especially fear. For decades, they have repeatedly utilized a contrivance that NWO researcher and author David Icke has characterized in his latest book, The Biggest Secret, as Problem, Reaction, and Solution.

Communist, Socialist, Liberal or Conservative

Communism and socialism are umbrella terms referring to two left-wing
schools of economic thought; both oppose capitalism, but socialism predates the "Communist Manifesto," an 1848 pamphlet by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, by a few decades.

Socialists do not believe in property ownership by an individual. All property is owned by the collective. A populist economic and political system based on the public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. Socialists trust the government to supply the products they need for daily living, their job, housing, education, and medical care.

NOTE: Why did Venezuela fail so horribly? The government, the people trusted to take care of them, decided not to purchase goods and services and kept the profits.
 
Liberals
believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

In general, Liberals believe a doctor should earn/make the same amount of income as someone who cleans bath rooms for a living. Even though the doctor spent 8 to 10 years studying for their position, while the bath room cleaner may or may not have seen the inside of any college, let alone take any class.

In other words, liberals want MORE government control of the people. Liberals, Socialists and Communists believe a central government should take care of the people.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, each individual is a sovereign person who does not need government permission to exercise their rights, freedoms, privileges, and liberty, and a strong national defense.

Conservatives believe the role of government should be to protect the freedom of the people necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems. Conservatives understand that humans are not equal, each and every person has skills and abilities, that others may not.

However, with Capitalism comes great responsibility. Each individual is responsible for ensuring that when they exercise their rights, freedoms, or liberties they do not infringe or violate the rights, freedoms, or liberty of others. Sometimes it is up to the individual to protect them self, their property, their family, and those who can not protect them self. That is why the US Constitution was written the way it was.

Anyone who doesn’t understand socialism can get an idea from this.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth .She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

 Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican party.”